Oh for God's sake, being racist is not illegal

[Anonymous]

What Jay Z says and writes is much more offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What Jay Z says and writes is much more offensive.

Shame he's not an owner or that point would be somewhat relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What Jay Z says and writes is much more offensive.

Then don't buy his records. Just don't . I don't give money to people whose words and actions u find offensive, no matter what the color.
You have no point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmmmm... Sterling has been at this for years and people knew and did not care. Black folk who worked for him knew.
As the book title says "40 Million Dollar Slaves".
NAACP had to RESCIND an award because they took money from this jackass. But, hey money talks and a lot if folks are evidently willing to overlook things if the price is right. Only difference now is a PUBLIC smoking gun and folks will look bad if they DONT make a public admonishment. This dude is crazy, but the fools who have been co- signing on his foolishness for years need a bigger gut check than he does if you asked me.
At some point we as a nation are going to have be willing to do the real work of addressing racism, in public AND in private...not just when it looks good for balance sheet!
- a SMART black woman giving this whole mess the side eye

Fixed that for you. Great points!

Thanks, but I want to make it clear that I think Sterling got what he deserved. It's just that some people like to use these types of situations to "prove" that racism is "over". 'See, people called out Sterling, so that means we are post-racial'.
When, in reality this jerk was able to operate and actively live out his bias( lawsuits, etc) and people did nothing because he had money and it was safe and/ or convienent or profitable. People need to wake up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Jay Z says and writes is much more offensive.

Shame he's not an owner or that point would be somewhat relevant.

Was part owner of Nets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupid and awful, but not illegal. It has it's own punishment. I'm tired of hearing about the basketball guy.

This is not unprecedented. I think it was the 80's, but it could have been early 90's, MLB banned the cincinnati
Reds owner for life for wearing a swastika and saying Hitler was not all bad. Eventually she was forced to sell her team. I don't recall anyone expressing their fatigue of hearing about the matter.

Schott was not a lifetime ban and more importantly selig did not force her to sell the team.

Her Limited Parnter's decided to take that action on their own.

This case is different....in that someone outside of the ownership of the clippers will vote to determine a forcible sale of the property. It is much more agressive than what MLB did with Schott

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupid and awful, but not illegal. It has it's own punishment. I'm tired of hearing about the basketball guy.

This is not unprecedented. I think it was the 80's, but it could have been early 90's, MLB banned the cincinnati
Reds owner for life for wearing a swastika and saying Hitler was not all bad. Eventually she was forced to sell her team. I don't recall anyone expressing their fatigue of hearing about the matter.

Schott was not a lifetime ban and more importantly selig did not force her to sell the team.

Her Limited Parnter's decided to take that action on their own.

This case is different....in that someone outside of the ownership of the clippers will vote to determine a forcible sale of the property. It is much more agressive than what MLB did with Schott

Schott made her offensive comments in her capacity as owner, not drunk jealous random private pillow talk to a lying boyfriend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupid and awful, but not illegal. It has it's own punishment. I'm tired of hearing about the basketball guy.

This is not unprecedented. I think it was the 80's, but it could have been early 90's, MLB banned the cincinnati
Reds owner for life for wearing a swastika and saying Hitler was not all bad. Eventually she was forced to sell her team. I don't recall anyone expressing their fatigue of hearing about the matter.

Schott was not a lifetime ban and more importantly selig did not force her to sell the team.

Her Limited Parnter's decided to take that action on their own.

This case is different....in that someone outside of the ownership of the clippers will vote to determine a forcible sale of the property. It is much more agressive than what MLB did with Schott

Schott made her offensive comments in her capacity as owner, not drunk jealous random private pillow talk to a lying boyfriend.

i know - which makes the NBA action against sterling even more harsher than what MLB/Selig did to Schott

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupid and awful, but not illegal. It has it's own punishment. I'm tired of hearing about the basketball guy.

This is not unprecedented. I think it was the 80's, but it could have been early 90's, MLB banned the cincinnati
Reds owner for life for wearing a swastika and saying Hitler was not all bad. Eventually she was forced to sell her team. I don't recall anyone expressing their fatigue of hearing about the matter.

Schott was not a lifetime ban and more importantly selig did not force her to sell the team.

Her Limited Parnter's decided to take that action on their own.

This case is different....in that someone outside of the ownership of the clippers will vote to determine a forcible sale of the property. It is much more agressive than what MLB did with Schott

Schott made her offensive comments in her capacity as owner, not drunk jealous random private pillow talk to a lying boyfriend.

i know - which makes the NBA action against sterling even more harsher than what MLB/Selig did to Schott

Let's be clear, people have been banned from professional sports. I'm not sure that this is less harsh than what happened to Pete Rose, it just involves ownership vs. labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmmmm... Sterling has been at this for years and people knew and did not care. Black folk who worked for him knew.
As the book title says "40 Million Dollar Slaves".
NAACP had to RESCIND an award because they took money from this jackass. But, hey money talks and a lot if folks are evidently willing to overlook things if the price is right. Only difference now is a PUBLIC smoking gun and folks will look bad if they DONT make a public admonishment. This dude is crazy, but the fools who have been co- signing on his foolishness for years need a bigger gut check than he does if you asked me.
At some point we as a nation are going to have be willing to do the real work of addressing racism, in public AND in private...not just when it looks good for balance sheet!
- a SMART black woman giving this whole mess the side eye

Fixed that for you. Great points!

How patronizing can you possibly be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Jay Z says and writes is much more offensive.

Then don't buy his records. Just don't . I don't give money to people whose words and actions u find offensive, no matter what the color.
You have no point.

PP has a point.

Anyone in entertainment has an audience, and while most adults can figure things out, kids are vulnerable. So to a kid with limited experience, Jay Z (and others) is cool.

THAT'S the point. sorry you can't grasp the bigger picture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't jay z a partial team owner ? He wore whites are devils bling at games.

JayZ sold his ownership in the New Jersey team. To my limited knowledge, Michael Jordan is the only racial minority who HS ownership in an NBA team.

indian guy owns sac kings as majority owner.

I thought Adrienne Maloof owned the kings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupid and awful, but not illegal. It has it's own punishment. I'm tired of hearing about the basketball guy.

This is not unprecedented. I think it was the 80's, but it could have been early 90's, MLB banned the cincinnati
Reds owner for life for wearing a swastika and saying Hitler was not all bad. Eventually she was forced to sell her team. I don't recall anyone expressing their fatigue of hearing about the matter.

Schott was not a lifetime ban and more importantly selig did not force her to sell the team.

Her Limited Parnter's decided to take that action on their own.

This case is different....in that someone outside of the ownership of the clippers will vote to determine a forcible sale of the property. It is much more agressive than what MLB did with Schott

Well if that's the case, good for the NBA for being aggressive and progressive. Shame on the MLB for their weak passivity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Jay Z says and writes is much more offensive.

Then don't buy his records. Just don't . I don't give money to people whose words and actions u find offensive, no matter what the color.
You have no point.

PP has a point.

Anyone in entertainment has an audience, and while most adults can figure things out, kids are vulnerable. So to a kid with limited experience, Jay Z (and others) is cool.

THAT'S the point. sorry you can't grasp the bigger picture

I know you guys want to find a comparable, but there is none. Little Johnny did it too, boohoo hoo. Btw, JZ once owned a minute share in a BB team. Moreover, I would disagree that the lyrics in his music is more offensive, but maybe you too think it's okay to be a 400 million slave master. That's whatvthey all Spelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Jay Z says and writes is much more offensive.

Then don't buy his records. Just don't . I don't give money to people whose words and actions u find offensive, no matter what the color.
You have no point.

PP has a point.

Anyone in entertainment has an audience, and while most adults can figure things out, kids are vulnerable. So to a kid with limited experience, Jay Z (and others) is cool.

THAT'S the point. sorry you can't grasp the bigger picture

I know you guys want to find a comparable, but there is none. Little Johnny did it too, boohoo hoo. Btw, JZ once owned a minute share in a BB team. Moreover, I would disagree that the lyrics in his music is more offensive, but maybe you too think it's okay to be a 400 million slave master. That's whatvthey all Spelling.

Sterling not Spelling.