“Sterling’s long-established pattern of bigotry and racist comments have not been a secret in the NBA. Yet until now, they have been tolerated and met with a gentle hand and a blind eye.”
Sterling’s racism was tolerated, while he was pumping money into greedy pockets, but when a cute bimbo pulls back the curtain, the sanctimonious bigots jump up and down, and have vapor attacks.
The NAACP, with their phony awards, appear to be as shallow and bigoted as Sterling.
That decision, the statement said, was “a bold, courageous and resolute message that the views expressed by Sterling do not represent the National Basketball Association as an organization today or the kind of organization that it seeks to be in the future.”
But Sterling’s suspension isn’t enough, the groups said, calling for Silver to meet with them to ensure Sterling “remains an anomaly among the owners and executives in the league.”
“Sterling’s long-established pattern of bigotry and racist comments have not been a secret in the NBA,” the statement said. “Yet until now, they have been tolerated and met with a gentle hand and a blind eye.
The bigots are on parade
They carry on a charade
On stage, they sing and dance
Acting out phony happenstance
Fools who see themselves as wise
Preach nonsense to knowing eyes
Sanctimonious honor and virtue
Held up with threads and tissue
Tales told by idiots, with words of sound and fury, then heard no more and signifying nothing.
paraphrased from the bard
@Rich Wheeler:
I don’t even know why I’m being drawn into an argument about his motives, his lack of articulation or the reasonableness of his views. As you point out, it is what it is. His comments speak for themselves and the language itself is unambiguously racist. And any contemporary American who pretends he doesn’t know it’s offensive to say blacks would be better off returned to slavery is lying.
@retire05:
You mean there was a part edited out where he says “Everything I’m about to say about blacks and slavery is the opposite of what I think. This is an example of what people should not say who don’t want to be labeled as ignorant racists”.
@Bill Burris:
Bill, no point in us arguing in circles. When ten different people are giving ten different, often mutually-exclusive arguments to the same purpose, that’s usually a pretty good indication the conclusion they’re desperate to reach is built on sand. So was it Bundy’s lack or articulation, his use of archaic or foreign expression? Was he set up, edited wrong, taken out of context? Is he a simple-minded man who honestly thinks slavery isn’t bad, or a deep policy wonk who was driving home a well-considered argument on government dependency? You should all try getting on the same page.
The thing I’m truly curious about is why people such as yourself can reliably be counted upon to back a Cliven Bundy to the death every single time? Do you think I’m surprised that Retire5 or Redteam or Nan are all hard-core Bundy apologists? If you cross-referenced Bundy Apologism, Birtherism, Obama is Muslim-ism, and George Zimmerman worship, what do think the correlation is? Approaching 100%? I find it absolutely fascinating. These are people who willingly follow the script wherever it goes, every single time something like this happens. The consistency of who will go all-in without a second thought is amazing.
@Tom:
You don’t have to play stupid, Tom. It just seems to attach itself to you like a leech. No, Bundy did not say that, but the first release of the video was highly edited to make it sound much worse than it was, and not one liberal media outlet remarked how Mr. Bundy complimented Hispanics. Why do you think that was?
And what is your stance on calling SCOTUS Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom?” Oooops, did that just slide by you?
If you are going to get your Hanes all pulled up the crack of your butt over one racist remark, then you need to do it about ALL racist remarks, including those made by your side of the aisle. And odd, how the reporting of over reach by the BLM, an arm of the federal government, turned into a reporting on “racist” comments by an 80 year old rancher who is being prosecuted by our own government. Nothing like distraction to take away from the bigger issue.
Apologist for Bundy? Where? Now, I know you have a problem with truth, but if you can find where I apologized for Bundy (since I feel I don’t need to do that since he is a big boy and can deal with what he said on his own) quote me. EXACTLY AND PRECISELY. What I will say is that Bundy’s comments are a false flag for people like you who are trying to divert the attention from the real issue; the over reach of the BLM.
@retire05:
Wow. Four strawmen in one response. Is that some kind of record?
@Tom:
Are you now the official arbiter of what is, or is not, a “strawman” argument here at FA? Or are those just inconvenient facts that you want to ignore because it does not fit with your meme? And which one of my “strawman” arguments is wrong?
You are the racist here, Tom. You see racists under your bed and flying over your house in black helicopters. You ignore that others, like Starr Parker who wrote an entire book on Uncle Sam’s Plantation, said the same thing Bundy said (had you bothered to listen to the completed video and not just the edited portion) albeit with greater finesse.
But people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan and Spike Lee would be out of business if they could not pimp the race card. Can we now assume that all the black Americans who voted for Obama are racists because they voted against the white guy since we have been told that the only reason any (white) person would be against Obama is just a simple case of racism against a black president?
FYI, your comic value is quickly dissipating.
@George Wells:
I doubt he’s concerned about dirty laundry. He has enough money to want to be right and I suspect that has a higher priority. Reading in the NBA constitution, it seems as if there are reasons he can be forced out, but I’m not sure that legally that evidence can be used against him because it was obtained illegally.
@George Wells: 26
George you need to remember the context the Constitution is written in. If the Constitution does not say that you do not have a right to privacy, then you have a right to privacy. The Constitution is a limit on the government powers, not on individuals. Any right not specifically given or withheld by the constitution is then a state’s right.
@Tom: 28
I don’t think you’ll find where I said rappers using the word is ‘worse’ than anyone else using the word. I’d say it’s a racist word and the use of it by anyone is racist. One racist does not have preference over another racist. Are you attempting to say that rappers using the word are not racist?
@Rich Wheeler: 36
Are you saying you can’t see racism where none exists? You’re saying that since you can’t see any racism in Bundy’s statements that if Bill can’t see any either, then there must not be any.
@retire05: 43
05, the really strange thing that was said in that interview that no one is talking about is that he said that Supreme Court Justice Thomas should favor blacks in his opinions. ie., to hell with the law, just rule for the black people. No leftist will touch that.
@Tom:
That’s your problem Tom, you’re trying to understand what he meant by something that HE DID NOT SAY. and that should be a real struggle. If you think he did say it, lift the exact quote that uses the words:
Don’t believe you can find it.
@Tom:
Don’t think you can find where i’ve been an ‘apologist’ for Bundy. More so an apologist for people such as you that clearly can’t understand what he said.
and you don’t think the correlation between you, RW and Greg, etc would be about 100%? Does that tell you that you’re buying the party line100% of the time, whether it’s right or wrong, or not?
Do ANY of you think that your pants are NOT on fire? Raider got it right back in his #8 post when he pointed out that racism is a human condition. It always HAS been. The difference is that in the past, your Mommy taught you not to point at the handicapped, and to say nothing if you couldn’t say something nice. Today, such discretion and grace is gone. People are now boldly announcing whatever crosses their minds, proud as Bundy or Retire05 to call a spade a spade or a sodomite a sodomite, as if there was some value in pointing out the obvious. Instead of trying to find some common ground upon which to build consensus about ANYTHING, everyone is drawing up sides for one big battle or another, ready to spit across the aisle at the first provocation. What, has it been too long since we all had to fight on the same side against a REAL enemy?
Arguing back and forth over who is the worst racist, really? Does one side get absolution if the other side is MORE racist? The fact that there are so many people pointing at each other and crying “racism” should be a clue that nobody has a monopoly on it. All are punished.
@George Wells:
Oh, yeah, you’re all into singing Kumbaya until you don’t get exactly what you want then you run to some sympathetic judge to change the will of those that disagree with you. What bullshit. How does the left work to build consensus? Short, but clear, answer? It doesn’t. It is the bully in the school yard. And then when people fight the bully and hit back, you scream “racist!!! homophobe!!! denier!!!” as if that makes you right.
So spare us the “why can’t we all just get along” crap when you are part of the problem.
@George Wells:
Raider’s pronouncement is the default ‘we can’t do anything about it so why bother bringing it up” argument of the beneficiaries of any standing inequality. If you were the one earmarked for slavery, or merely stopped and frisked on a regular basis, you might feel differently about its convenient-for-some fatalistic nature. As for “no one is perfect”, it’s a pretty pathetically manipulative way to demand silence in the face of repeated radical conservative attempts to justify white supremacy. The idea that only he whose “pants are NOT on fire” is worthy of calling out Cliven Bundy or Ted Nugent for what they are and for what they represent is ludicrous.
@Tom:
.
And on what authority do you presume to speak to that issue?
@Tom: To argue with these old timers over Bundy’s words is senseless.If they believe what he said wasn’t racist so be it.
The reality—
@Tom: To argue with these folks is a waste of time. If they truly believe Bundy’s comments were not racist– so be it. In my mind it merely confirms what these old timers truly are.
RT Do you realize you had SEVEN comments in a row. Get over yourself.
@Rich & Tom:
“Pants-on-fire” comment was meant to lead into my point that we all have a streak of racism (it is a favored pillar of natural selection), not to point at one side or the other and imply superiority.
The challenge is not to eliminate the impulse to favor one’s own race, but to control it. (This is where the grace and discretion would come in.) The alternative is racial warfare.
If you read Retire05’s # 65 post, you get the sense that it is all about the good (or not so good) fight, not about solving problems. Always ugly, ugly, ugly.
Yes, Sterling and Bundy are ugly racists, but so are the clowns that the “right” throws back in our faces, as if two wrongs make a right. They don’t. Both are examples of people who are either too blinded by their own flaws to see the truth, or else their agendas prevent them from acknowledging it. That is not to say that we are all flawed, so why bother. It is to encourage the first step toward the grace and forgiveness that must be achieved before racial warfare can be eliminated. Either you ATTEMPT to move in that direction, or you give up. I’m not ready to give up.
@George Wells: AGAIN, unless you WANT to interpret Bundy’s clumsy statements as racist (one must have a malice and motive to do so, it cannot be done by accident) there is no proof in Bundy’s remarks that indicates he is a racist. Now, he MAY be nonetheless, but no evidence you or I have would lead us to such a conclusion. Unless, of course, there was some reason to want to go there. And the left certainly had that reason.
If you would look up the definition of racism, you could clearly see this. Nowwhere will you find a definition of “racism is whatever you want it to be’depemding on the weakness of the position you are currently trying to defend”. Racism is the hatred or mistreatment of a group based on race or simply characterizing a group based on race. Bundy did none of that. Sterling specifically did.
The left has used race as a cheap weapon so much that racism no longer has any meaning. All of what you just said is racist; all of what I just said is racist. Everything everyone says is racist. If it had not been thought Sterling was a Republicanan, his remarks would have been innocuous…in fact, you equate them with Bundy’s. The left has abused the term so much, it hardly has any real meaning any more.
@Rich Wheeler:
They were not in a ‘row’, they were in a column. Didn’t they teach the difference at that toothpaste school? If I’ve been gone and come in and read 50 comments, then it’s likely I’m gonna respond to at least 7 of them. But I will continue to put the responses into a column so you won’t be offended by rows.
This is response No. 1 in a column.
@Bill Burris: Stirling’s politics. Who cares? His taped racist remarks are not “innocuous” to the NBA or his team. Go CLIPPERS
RT row/column At least you got a sense of humor. Unlike your bunkmate.
@Rich Wheeler: “Stirling’s politics. Who cares?” Well, it was important enough to point out the fallacy that he is a Republican.
A Straw Man is a made up argument (a demon, so to speak) that one then destroys with logic as if it was the real opponent’s argument.
Obama does it when he makes statements like, Republicans believe that doing nothing is better than passing ObamaCare (the ACA).
See?
Then Obama makes arguments against the status quo as if Republicans had never desired reform to our health care.
In the four instances you cite were these:
1) not one liberal media outlet remarked how Mr. Bundy complimented Hispanics.
This is a call for CONTEXT, always an important factor in debate.
2) And what is your stance on calling SCOTUS Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom?”
Since a Dem actually did this SINCE the Sterling story broke, this is a request for your view on racism coming from a black man who excused himself simply because he was black.
Do you do the same?
A valid question.
3) you need to do it about ALL racist remarks,
This is a call for consistency.
Why should there be two sets of scales?
4) odd, how the reporting of over reach by the BLM, an arm of the federal government, turned into a reporting on “racist” comments by an 80 year old rancher
This is pointing out how the argument has slided from a discussion of a gov’t policy into a discussion of personalities…..a moving of the goalposts.
The Left has been moving the goalposts, not the Right.
So, no straw men.
@Nanny G #75:
I really liked your careful analysis of Retire05’s questions – you attempted to present a rational explanation based upon logic and rules of debate. Unfortunately, you sullied your otherwise crisp dissection with the final partisan remark:
“The Left has been moving the goalposts, not the Right.”
This accusation exposes you to an immediate and easy proof of fallacy: All that is required is one example where the Right has been moving goalposts. Here is proof of your error:
In its argument against gay marriage, the Right repeatedly made the point between 2004 and 2009 that the only instance where gay marriage had been legalized (Massachusetts) was a case in which the court had ruled in its favor, “LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH,” which was intolerable. Then, the legislatures of Vermont (2009), New Hampshire (2010) and New York (2011) passed gay marriage and the “legislating” that had previously been so central to the Right’s argument became irrelevant. The Right moved the goal post, making popular acclaim the new standard of legitimacy for gay marriage. Not surprising, when Maine (2012), Washington (2012) and Maryland (2013) passed gay marriage by referendum, the goal post was moved yet again, this time taking an entirely different approach that insisted upon a states-rights-based concession that some states would inevitably get gay marriage while others would not, and the resulting confusion would not be a problem.
My apologies to those who don’t want to talk about gay marriage any more, but the Right’s losing prosecution of that social battle demonstrates the movement of goal posts as well as any similar tactics employed by the Left.
Goal posts are moved when they have to be moved. It is a measure used in an attempt to salvage some small victory from an otherwise total rout. BOTH sides of the aisle move goal posts.
The statement:
“”The Left has been moving the goalposts, not the Right.”
Is proven false.
@Nanny G:
A strawman is a fallacy bases upon misrepresenting the argument at hand, or your opponent’s position on it. None of the four sited arguments advanced by Retire provide evidence that Bundy’s statements were racist, which is what we were debating. They’re all arguing something completely different. How exactly does Retire’s opinion of my personal consistency on racism change whether or not Cliven Bundy is a racist? Seems ridiculous to me. And how does Bundy complimenting Hispanics prove Bundy is not a racist against blacks? Yes, those are strawmen, Nan. There are so many around here, I figured you’d know how to recognize one by now.
@Tom:
And on what authority do you presume to speak to that issue?
We are still waiting on your answer.
@George Wells:
Do you deny that the voters of California voted for Prop 8 only to have it overturned by a homosexual judge who stood to benefit from over ruling the will of the California voters?
By any judicial ethical standards, the judge should have recused himself, instead, he did not even reveal that he was in a long term homosexual relationship and had intentions of marrying his same sex partner as soon as same sex marriage was legalized in California. For that action, he should have been disbarred, or at the very least, removed from the bench, and his decision overturned due to his sorry lack of ethics.
Like I said, you’re quite willing to sing Kumbaya, as long as everyone else lets you lead the chorus. You’re a hypocrite.
@George Wells:
If anyone knows about moving the goal posts, it is the gay left, of which you are the leading cheerleader. Or have you forgotten all the b/s that was spouted by the gay left in the days leading up to Lawrence vs. Texas? My, my, how the goal posts have been moved since those days by you and your ilk.
@retire05 #’s 78 & 79:
Thank you for confirming the accuracy of my #76 post by:
A. Failing to dispute the example given, and
B. Changing the subject, i.e. moving the goal post yet again.
“Do you deny that the voters of California voted for Prop 8 only to have it overturned by a homosexual judge who stood to benefit from over ruling the will of the California voters?”
As posed, the answer to your question would seem obviously damning, but as posed it is the question itself that is damned. Does every issue that benefits heterosexuals have to be decided by homosexuals? Does congress recuse itself from deliberations on the subject of its own pay raises? Do human rights have to be approved by non-humans? How does a judge who affirms a human right not stand to benefit from that right? There is a line that your question crosses that the justices of the Supreme Court, whether in agreement or dissent, chose not to cross. On that, I defer to their good judgment.
“the gay left, of which you are the leading cheerleader.”
You flatter me!
Is JayZ a racist? Answer for yourself;
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/05/jay-z-held-black-only-fan-party-while-he-owned-nba-team-no-one-cared/
@Redteam:
Nice website. I knew (thought) you were an upstanding, old fashioned, conservative guy, but you’re actually way deeper into this white supremacy stuff than I realized. You have a lot of nerve lecturing anyone on racism when you’re spamming us with this drivel.
From your websites “Statement of Principles” http://topconservativenews.com/introduction/statement-of-principles/
@Tom: Going after the messenger because you can’t refute the facts?
Go after Huff Po:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/jay-z-five-percent-nation_n_5107180.html
See also http://www.christianpost.com/news/jay-z-embraces-five-percent-nation-addresses-illuminati-and-questions-other-religions-99848/
Oh, and the Left adds this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/15/884649/-Why-there-s-no-such-thing-as-Reverse-Racism
So, when blacks hate whites it isn’t ”racism.”
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIght!
@Nanny G:
Yes, because what avowed white separatists write about Jay Z constitutes “facts”. Perhaps in your world, Nan. Let’s see, you feel strongly that Jay Z’s medallion is racist, therefore Cliven Bundy cannot be racist? Try to remember, I already explained to you what a strawman is, Nan. I’m just shocked you haven’t found a way to work a rant about Muslims into this. It’s so unlike you.
@Tom:
We had no idea that you considered the leftist writers at the Huffington Post to be avowed racist white separatists.
@Nanny G:
I take that your silence re: #76 is your typical answer when caught making a false statement. If you’ve read my posts, you will find that I admit my errors and apologize for them – good manners that at least some of us liberals learned as children.
@Tom Careful Tom. RT an Anglophile? a Francophile? No
He despises Europeans as much as he does Blacks and Mexicans. Who does he like—05 and Nan-pattern there?
RE Nan– You got her pegged.
@Rich Wheeler:
Do you just make it all up as you go along? What have I written about Europeans? or Blacks? or Mexicans? I’m an American. I think the borders of this country should be open to LEGAL immigration from all countries. I think everyone in the country illegally needs to be deported. Our borders need to be as secure as all other countries borders are. I have no problem with anyone from any country or race entering the country legally. Basically I feel as if most racism in the country is caused by persons of color. I see or hear very little from Caucasians. Just for the record, I have no idea what race or color 05 or Nan are.
@George Wells:
LOL
Pat Sajak helps lead national ridicule of Rutgers over rejection of Condi Rice
So privileged, white supremacist leftist students at Rutgers don’t want to hear from an empowered highly successful black woman who didn’t stay on the Democrat entitlement plantation. What woman hating racists!
You would be correct had I not been taking on EACH of FOUR specific instances that were cited before my comment.
Here’s my context:
In the four instances you cite ….4)
This is pointing out how the argument has slided from a discussion of a gov’t policy into a discussion of personalities…..a moving of the goalposts.
The Left has been moving the goalposts, not the Right.
IN THIS INSTANCE, this is true.
Of course there are fallacies of all types in rhetoric on either side, George.
I concede that.
But I wasn’t talking about all rhetoric all through time, just in these instances.
And, in that instance, YES, the LEFT would rather talk about personalities than gov’t over-reach.
The only thing you ”proved” is that you can conveniently miss context whenever you wish.
@Redteam says: “most racism in the country is caused by persons of color. I see or hear very little from Caucasions.”
The view from The Right.
‘Fiestas’ Are Now Racist, According To Dartmouth College
Apparently, there was no consideration of a opening a discussion with Hernandez about how they could make the celebration more “authentic,” so that they could go forward with the charity fundraiser.
Oddly enough I found nothing on whether Dartmouth students cancelled Saint Patrick’s Day celebrations two months prior for fear of offending those of Irish ancestry. Hypocritical racists!
@Ditto:
Today is major FIESTA day for me and my family.
Cinco de Mayo.
We are making tostada grandes, tequila lime wings, margaritas and having Mexican beer.
All day we nosh and nap…..fiesta and siesta.
@Rich Wheeler:
Nope, from reality.
@Nanny G</This is the Mexican holiday that is only observed in the US.
@Rich Wheeler: Rich, you wouldn’t make nearly as many mistakes on your quoting of me if you would cut and paste and then blockquote it. I said in 89: “Basically I feel as if most racism in the country is caused by persons of color. I see or hear very little from Caucasians.”
You quoted me in 93: “most racism in the country is caused by persons of color. I see or hear very little from Caucasions.”
As I’ve asked before, when you quote me, be sure you are quoting correctly.
@Redteam: RT Thanks for showing I quoted you exactly.
Your reality isn’t real RT.
@Redteam: Your word “Caucasions” My word: ” Caucasians”
They didn’t teach you to spell or proof read at that toothpaste school?