If you seriously think this is about Sterling not wanting minorities at the Clippers game you have completely missed many points along the way. Carry on, I won't bother you further.
Wow, it's not surprising that you are thought of as one of the densest posters here. You have no idea what you are talking about or how it relates to the original posts I made. This is not about "damages", not about the loss of a single ticket sale or loss of one TV viewer. It's not about the owners losing a dollar and it's not about them having to PROVE they lost a dollar. It's about the image of the LEAGUE. He has become toxic to the league. When you have 15-20 sponsors saying "we will not do business with you" and players threatening to boycott, that has NOTHING to do with damages or the loss of revenue (although they are clearly losing revenue for every sponsorship dollar forfeited). He has become TOXIC for the other owners, far beyond a single ticket sale or tv viewer. You just don't understand the larger picture here- keep suggesting the owners need to show tangible loss, it's irrelevant. They HAVE to get him out of the league, players will walk if they let him stay, the league will burn. You don't get it. The fact that that child Soxx is "liking" your posts should be a clue. Go buy one. _
I can't take it much longer. Children making idiotic platitudes and dense posters posting clueless drivel. In 1000 word posts, no less. I seriously weep for the children. _
A bizarre situation just got even more bizarre, although if this is true doesn't look like the NBA will have to worry about a lawsuit now... http://nypost.com/2014/05/01/disgraced-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-is-battling-cancer/
The thing that bothers me with this is we will soon be dealing with another reality star, Sterling's butterface gf is going to be milking this. We did get a new urban dictionary entry out of it at least. Archivist: An Attractive younger woman that have sexual relations with wealthy older men and records all conversation made between the two illegally. Then uses it as blackmail against said older man for monetary or public gain. Reporter: Ms. Stiviano, Do you consider yourself to be Donald Sterling's Girlfriend. Ms. Stiviano: No, I was his Archivist.
Sterling is fighting cancer and was thought to possibly die 2 years ago. If he wants to fight this in court, let him. He'll probably be dead before this thing even starts
What I'm "trying" to say here is that the NBA used this as a pretext to get rid of Sterling. He told the girl he didn't want blacks at his games. In his defense to prove he did't operate the franchise in a discriminatory way, in spite of his words he could show that he didn't discriminate in the allocation of tickets, etc. He wanted black customers. Distributed tickets to them fairly and sold seats on an equal opportunity basis. In terms of racism actions speak louder than words.
Racism is a mentality. I thought he told the girl that she shouldn't be publicly seen with black folks, not that he didn't want them at the game. "He wanted black customers." No. He wanted customers, and considering that something like 80% of the league is black he had no choice but to conform. With dudes like this it is ALWAYS about the money first. He knew that if he blatantly discriminated, he'd lose revenue, because tolerance is a catch phrase in recent times. That's why he kept his true feelings under wraps. Unfortunately it just takes one guy with a recorder to show the world how he really feels. He may be an ignorant racist entitled dirtbag, but money is his primary motivator. Don't ever forget that.
So what's the big to-do about how Donald Sterling feels inside. He has a right to his own personal feelings or prejudices as long as they don't discriminate against other people. I saw one ex-NBA player interviewed and he stated something about you'd better watch out if you open up this can of worms. Players will have to watch everything they say in public and private. Including practices (that's what he said) when all kinds of things are thrown out. And as far as being money first you're 100% right. Why do you think they're throwing him out of the league. Because they are so appalled about what he said.
Agreed, her face has got that weird Kim Kardashian-esque symmetry whose supposed 'hotness' I flat out "just don't get." Creepy-looking Skankasaurus imho.
Sad part is that she probably had a load of plastic surgery done to get the way she looks. Her nose is freakishly small which was probably overcompensation for the huge nose she likely had before, looks like she had cheek implants that make her face alien shaped, and her lips probably have more collagen in them than human tissue. Soon some ex-friend in San Antonio will get a few thousand for the Before picture of her.
Golddigger probably has more plastic than a Corvette …. or even Cher. Below: inter-vaginal image from a fiber-optic camera used during her pelvic exam:
The mouth is what's really off putting. The high cheekbones and bad skin are awful, but that mouth sucks. Well, maybe that's the attraction. g _
Looks like Chic went to Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon. She could be Latoya Jackson. Either way, she's a flake but her one redeeming feature might just be what services she can provide in the dark.
So now you are backtracking off of your initial backtrack. If they are being harmed the damages will be easy to prove. You want to claim they are being damaged but are afraid to admit that it would simply require being provable because that is my point and you are more concerned with arguing against me than addressing my point. Clearly you are arguing the damages are provable so how are you attempting to dispute my position that merely states the NBA would have to prove it? And this is why you ARE one of the densest posters here. Whether Soxxx likes my posts or not is irrelevant to your backtracking and inability to dispute my argument, and the fact that you are dependent on criticizing Soxxx as a means to defend your position only continue as to validate how weak and asinine your position is.
You have missed the entire concept and are still confusing actual "damages" and harm to the league--that's dense. I haven't backtracked at all. Again, you seem to think that actual damages from the loss of a ticket or a viewer is what's important. It's not--the harm is the "damage" to the image of the league that is at issue. And yes, they actually HAVE lost dollars because 20 sponsors have terminated or suspended their endorsement deals. But again, that's irrelevant--it's not about losing a dollar, a ticket, a viewer, it's about the HARM to the league. He has become toxic to the league and they have to get him out, whether they lost a dollar or not is irrelevant in the big picture. Soxx liking your posts should be a clue. _
damage to the image of the league would be quantifiable. if they lose nothing tangible how can they claim the image is damaged? they can't. you then defended your position by contradicting your argument that it wasn't about losing money by claiming they are losing sponsorship money -- a tangible damage -- to validate your position. what's the damage of player's boycotting -- loss of game revenue. this is why you are also likely a shitty lawyer -- it is so basic even I know it.
