Moderated Donald Sterling, Owner of the Clippers, is Racist

[Nova Land]

... I'm guessing that Sterling's contribution(s) to Bradley may have been based less on ideology and more on Bradley's background in the NBA.

That's an interesting possibility. But I wouldn't rule out that he gave Bradley the money based on Bradley's political beliefs and the basketball connection is simply a coincidence.

I can't help noticing that Sterling gave $1000 to Patrick Leahy in the 1992 election cycle. I don't see a basketball connection there, and in the quick skim I've done of Leahy's committee assignments (Leahy was vice-chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the time of the Iran-Contra hearings, and from 1987 to 1995 he was chair of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee) I don't see anything which would put Leahy in a position to especially affect Sterling's business interests, so it's quite likely the donation to Leahy is based on actual agreement with Leahy's stands. Leahy was and is one of the more liberal / progressive Democrats.

I wish we could see which Democrats Sterling contributed to earlier in the 1980s. OpenSecrets began compiling donor records in the 1980s and their records appear to go back only to 1988; the oldest Sterling donation the LittleSis search done via OpenSecrets was from 1989. But the realgm search (done in 2011 via NewsMeat.com) seems to go back a little farther (since it claims a total of $6000 in donations).

Unfortunately the NewsMeat site is refusing to come up for me so I'm unable to check their search results myself. But the difference in totals between OpenSecrets and NewsMeat implies to me that in addition to donating to Bradley in 1989 for the 1990 election and to Leahy and Davis in 1991 for the 1992 election Sterling may have also donated to unnamed Democrat(s) for the 1988 election and quite possibly for previous elections as well. If we knew who these candidates were we might have a better idea of what criteria Sterling used to select candidates to give money to.

That still wouldn't answer what I find to be a more intriguing question, though: why did Sterling abruptly stop making political donations after the 1992 election and instead focus on non-political charity work?

 

[Caper]

You know.... This pages long discussion of whether he is democrat or not is absolutely ridiculous. How could anyone care what party he is?

 

[maxpower1227]

When asked about the controversy, Sterling insisted, "I'm not racist. Some of my best players are black!"

 

[johnny karate]

Um, that's the point.

The players should boycott until the NBA does something.

I agree completely. The PLAYERS need to make it clear to the league that THEY will not accept this crap. No "suspension" or anything, just get that guy away from the league.

I disagree completely.

What you are asking would be more detrimental to the players than anyone else. They shouldn't have to jeopardize their personal goals and dreams because the guy they work for turns out to be a jackass.

Give the league the opportunity to handle it.

 

[johnny karate]

You know.... This pages long discussion of whether he is democrat or not is absolutely ridiculous. How could anyone care what party he is?

Because conservatives are desperate to win even the smallest skirmish in this particular culture war in which they have so thoroughly and consistently had their asses hand to them.

So the more moronic of them will continue to bleat this debunked nonsense as if it meant something even if it were true.

 

[Unabogie]

Because conservatives are desperate to win even the smallest skirmish in this particular culture war in which they have so thoroughly and consistently had their asses hand to them.

So the more moronic of them will continue to bleat this debunked nonsense as if it meant something even if it were true.

I'm not so sure. I see that President Obama has weighed in and called this Democratic power player "ignorant". Really, Obama? Have you given no thought to Bill Bradley's prospects in 2016?

 

[Caper]

Because conservatives are desperate to win even the smallest skirmish in this particular culture war in which they have so thoroughly and consistently had their asses hand to them.

So the more moronic of them will continue to bleat this debunked nonsense as if it meant something even if it were true.

Don't give me that bull. You know as well as I that if he had any connection to the Republican Party. The same group on the left would be going after him the same way.

 

[ABC10]

You know.... This pages long discussion of whether he is democrat or not is absolutely ridiculous. How could anyone care what party he is?

Only we conservatives who have been accused of all kinds of untrue racism by the Left Lib Noise Machine. It is with great delight to view that the actual racist statement comes from one of their own and of course, being honored by the NAACP. Watching Witt - failure of outrageous indignation on MSNBC commentators. They are waiting to see proof that the speaker is Sterling, along with restraint to let the NBA handle this and no boycott by the multi million dollar players to date.
How sweet it is.
Of course, Brown grad Chris Hayes is astonished that Clive is being supported in spite of his defense of Mexican hard working tax payers and view that people are happier working with goals and prospects. Is he astonished by Sterling and his outright racist remarks about blacks?
Fun to see'em back tracking on their guy. Discussion is going good.

 

[Stellafane]

Because conservatives are desperate to win even the smallest skirmish in this particular culture war in which they have so thoroughly and consistently had their asses hand to them.

So the more moronic of them will continue to bleat this debunked nonsense as if it meant something even if it were true.

It does illustrate a difference between certain political mindsets. The first takes obvious delight upon discovering a racist may support a political philosophy they oppose. The other despairs whenever a new racist reveals themselves, irrespective of the politics involved. It should be apparent to all but a diminishing few which of those two mindsets is the more useful.

 

[Meed]

Yes, in a broad sense, freedom of speech does mean freedom from (certain) consequences. But if you'll notice my original comment said "he" doesn't have freedom of consequences. Specific, rather than general.

I understood that. "He" does have freedom from (certain) consequences and that is what free speech means. YMMV on what consequences one should be free from in order for it to be deemed "freedom of speech".

 

[Cain]

I don't care how much trouble it gets me in, how many friends I lose, I'll just say it: I hate racism.

 

[Unabogie]

Only we conservatives who have been accused of all kinds of untrue racism by the Left Lib Noise Machine. It is with great delight to view that the actual racist statement comes from one of their own and of course, being honored by the NAACP. Watching Witt - failure of outrageous indignation on MSNBC commentators. They are waiting to see proof that the speaker is Sterling, along with restraint to let the NBA handle this and no boycott by the multi million dollar players to date.
How sweet it is.
Of course, Brown grad Chris Hayes is astonished that Clive is being supported in spite of his defense of Mexican hard working tax payers and view that people are happier working with goals and prospects. Is he astonished by Sterling and his outright racist remarks about blacks?
Fun to see'em back tracking on their guy. Discussion is going good.

This is bizarro world stuff. I hope you'll one day respond to Nova Land's complete evisceration of the lies you've been spreading, but I don't hold out any hope that you'll be able to process just how thoroughly he embarrassed you. But regarding MSNBC:

Here's their number one story.

http://www.msnbc.com/

Yeah, Donald Sterling is some sort of liberal shibboleth that liberals are quaking in their boots over.

 

[ABC10]

This is bizarro world stuff. I hope you'll one day respond to Nova Land's complete evisceration of the lies you've been spreading, but I don't hold out any hope that you'll be able to process just how thoroughly he embarrassed you. But regarding MSNBC:

Here's their number one story.

http://www.msnbc.com/

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5670535d36f3d0777.jpg[/qimg]

Yeah, Donald Sterling is some sort of liberal shibboleth that liberals are quaking in their boots over.

Its impossible to embarrass me. Although the MSNBC team and others are screaming for authentication that it actually is Sterling, I think they got him fair and square. Hope he stands up and takes the consequences like a man or woman. The commentators were arguing with each other, talking over each other and can't cover this up fast enough. They even want to blame it on being old. OUCH! No lies or evisceration here. Who is Nova?

 

[johnny karate]

Don't give me that bull. You know as well as I that if he had any connection to the Republican Party. The same group on the left would be going after him the same way.

No, they wouldn't. That's because conservatives tend to defend guys like this, and rationalize their repugnant views.

Let me give you an example of what that looks like:

Clive was defending blacks and latinos in his presser.

Clive is being supported in spite of his defense of Mexican hard working tax payers and view that people are happier working with goals and prospects.

(That last bit, by the way, is a sad and twisted rationalization of a statement claiming blacks were better off as slaves.)

See also: Duck Dynasty, Brendan Eich, Ted Nugent, etc.

And that's the sticking point.

Conservative tend to close ranks around the scumbags in their midsts. Liberals cast them out.

 

[Unabogie]

Its impossible to embarrass me.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[johnny karate]

This is bizarro world stuff. I hope you'll one day respond to Nova Land's complete evisceration of the lies you've been spreading, but I don't hold out any hope that you'll be able to process just how thoroughly he embarrassed you. But regarding MSNBC:

Here's their number one story.

http://www.msnbc.com/

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5670535d36f3d0777.jpg[/qimg]

Yeah, Donald Sterling is some sort of liberal shibboleth that liberals are quaking in their boots over.

Forget it, Unabogie. It's Crazytown.

 

[ravdin]

I too am disgusted by the systemic racism in the Democratic Party.

 

[Meed]

I don't care how much trouble it gets me in, how many friends I lose, I'll just say it: I hate racism.

How could you hurt me like this?

 

[Dr. Imago]

ETA: All that aside, let's clairify: what is "non-free" speech?

I don't think there really is any more "free speech" in this age of trial by the court of public opinion.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Olowkow]

Just now saw this from this morning's Meet the Press. So much for the NAACP's award I guess. As Ms Miller says, the only option is to do something rather than to let such behavior stand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/27/don-sterling-racist_n_5222268.html

The NAACP's Los Angeles chapter has apparently reconsidered plans to give Don Sterling an award in the wake of the Clippers owner's racist rant. "He is not receiving a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP," Lorraine Miller, NAACP interim vice president, said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."