Sunday July 5, 2015
Jump to content
Before we start this discussion I want to make it VERY clear that not only am I not prejudiced, and not only have I spent my entire life speaking against it, but it has cost me dearly at times to do so.
Nevertheless, a question arises over the recent comments attributed to L. A. Clipper owner Donald Sterling.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, Sterling is accused of being a racist, and of having asked his girlfriend, who is of black and Mexican descent, not to not to broadcast her association with black people or bring black people to games.
I noted in the article I read that some individuals said that they will never attend another Clippers game while he is the owner. Fine! That's their right.
I'm sure other people are making similar comments. Also fine! Also their right.
But here's a tough question for you. Think carefully before you answer it.
The Question Is....
Does a private company, which is all the NBA is, have the right to suspend or otherwise punish any individual for exercising his First Amendment right of free speech, saying how he feels about some race or ethnic group?
I know this is a tough one, folks, and it can be hard to speak up for freedom of speech when you disagree very strongly with what the speaker is saying, but I'd like to hear from each of you about this.
I see it as a test of strength, a test of whether we are willing to grant others the right to speak even when we strongly disagree with what they are saying.
Isn't it true that what we do as individuals is different from what we do as a group? Isn't individual action a question of freedom and group action a matter of oppression?
Can't we state our feelings through individual action? If a businessman chooses to set himself against the people isn't it a matter of free choice whether or not we choose — as individuals — to boycott that business?
Isn't individual action enough? Do we have to have group action?
This is a fundamental issue. I really need to hear from every one of you!
I feel his comments were in private.Larry Johnson,ex NBA player holds a press conference and declares they should make the NBA an all-black league.That to me is racist.Years ago at a Longhorn football game,a friend asked me something,I gave him my answer and this guy overheard and spit in my face calling me a racist because I didn't for Obama.I didn't vote for Obama because too many questions about his past and we still don't know the answers too.
This is case where a mountain has been made out of a mole hill. Frankly, the guy and the girl are a nutcase. He dates a woman of black/mexican descent and then tells her not to bring black people to games. If he feels bringing black people to games is awkward, why date a person of mixed race? Since she is of mixed race, why did she tolerate being told to not bring black people to games. Didn't she see this request as insulting?
Also, if this was a private remark between him and her, how did it become public?
Frankly, private remarks are just that PRIVATE.
Dale, you hit the nail right on the head. I too see things in the news — all the time — that are examples of racial prejudice, ones that are accepted by the mainstream media without so much as a murmur. Obviously, they have two standards when it comes to such things. The way freedom works is simple: If you want to enjoy your freedom to speak your mind, you have to be ready to fight for others to do the same.
The person who spit in your face is an example of some closed-minded idiot who is lucky that others understand the true meaning of liberty. The idea of saying that someone is against Obama solely because he is black is arrant nonsense; Obama has disappointed everyone, even his opponents. He has proven that he is nothing more than another typical Chicago politician, both corrupt and willing to do whatever he has to do to get in power and stay in power. If he has a legitimate agenda of any kind I don't see what it is.
I knew absolutely nothing about him back in 2006 when I first heard his name and heard someone comment that he might run for president. I didn't even know if he was a Democrat or Republican, but I remember thinking that it would be a good thing for the nation if a black was elected to the highest office because it would bring us all closer together.
He has done the exact opposite. He has polarized this nation so badly that we are worse off in that regard now in 2014 than we were in the 1930's when I was born.
And me! What a dummy I was back in 2008! I said, "Anyone except Hillary!" (I was angry because she hadn't given her cheating rat of a husband the boot he deserved.) Boy! Was I wrong. Even she would have been better than Obama. At least should she would not have divided the nation as much as Obama has.
You want the honest-to-God truth? I do not understand the man. He came into office with an easy win on the exactly correct platform for the time, and had the chance to do a lot of good. He was promising "change" every time he spoke. People were ready for change. Instead we got more of the same — only worse.
What I see now is a nation that is holding its breath and biding its time until we can get rid of him. Even the Democrats are angry with him. So what did he do with his chance to make real "change?" He tossed it in the trash. I wonder if he realizes how he failed the nation?
This is a side comment, and a little off the subject, but I have MANY times heard or read of people making trouble at football games. It has made me wonder if that say something about people who go to high school and college football games. I hope it doesn't because for my eight years of teaching in a Texas high school before I came here I went to every single game in all those years, both at home and away.
But you have to wonder.....
I agree with you. It's sickening when people spy on celebrities of any kind and report the dirty little secrets they dig up. What kind of person does that? I feel sure this was not something that was accidentally overheard. The man was targeted. From what I read in the news reports, never having heard the man's name before, he has been accused of racism before, so its obvious that someone dug into what should have been a private phone call and made something of it — the "something" probably being money.
Free speech is free speech! What free speech is supposed to protect are two things: Facts and opinions. The man has an opinion. That's his right.
And you're right again! It's none of our business how the man expresses his opinions in private. We don't want to hear it. And we have no right to hear it. Private is private.
As for the fact that the mainstream media felt it was necessary to report that his girlfriend was of some particular mix, that too was private. It is her business, not ours. It was only included to make more money out of what the man said by stirring the s--t with a stick.
And while it is no doubt someone's right to say that he or she will never watch another Clippers game, it is NOT the business of the NBA to do something about what its owners think or say in private conversations.
Individual, legal, peaceful action, such as boycotting, taken against someone whose viewpoint does not match yours is absolutely correct, and is protected by the Constitution. If you don't like what the man does or says, then don't put your money into his business. That's your right.
I think there is some hidden agenda in the whole mess. Maybe we will find out what it is or maybe not. Everyone has an opinion and a right to state it.
The people that are trying to get rid of him have probably said worse things, but no news person was listening in or they were friends.
Why don't they just drop the whole thing and quit stirring it every day?
The basket ball players are still going to be paid no matter what color they are as long as they can play ball.
"Why don't they just drop the whole thing and quit stirring it every day?"
It's called "yellow-sheet" journalism, Pat. Been going on a long time. You can blame three kinds of people for it:
The people who sneak around, delving into matters that are private, and making a living out of it.
The people who say they believe in our rights, but actually would like to turn us into clones who think like they do, talk like they do, and act like they do because, knowing that they are perfect, they want the rest of the world to join them.
The people who listen to the talking heads or buy the scandal sheets which make a living out of all this.
Take away any of those three and this kind of stuff would end.
Just out of curiosity, if you could do it, which one of those three would you change?
Careful! That's a dangerously easy sounding question! :-)
Posting comments requires a free account