Knicks · OT: Donald Sterling is An Old School Racist (page 5)
DrAlphaeus wrote:NardDogNation wrote:As for basketball, Sterling was the only guy dumb enough to make the comments he did so carelessly but he's not the only owner in professional sports that is of that sentiment.To his credit, it was a presumably private argument with his girlfriend about her Instagram feed, not public comments like that dumbass Bundy. I imagine that kind of argument happens all over with dumb shit being said but no one is recording them, lucky for them! But man… hot coz your chick is posting a pic with Magic Johnson, not Wacka Flacka Flame or somebody else… maybe he's afraid she'll get a taste and start ending up in hip-hop videos. "walking with minorities"… The whole situation is unsavory.
He's a lawyer dude. He should have the street smarts to know that any form of communication via a device is essentially public. I say that because that kind of discourse could easily be recorded (as it was) or intercepted by a third party e.g. the government or some kind of hired hand looking for dirt. You would think that a self-made billionaire would have the common sense not to get himself caught like that.
TeamBall wrote:So this woman is apparently being sued by Sterling and said that she would "get even" or something to that effect
I made a comment earlier that she was no better than Sterling. That girl is working an angle and playing it damn well. As I said before, don't be surprised to see her end up with a book deal and/or reality TV show unless she has more dirt on Sterling to leverage money out of him. I doubt she has anything left though because Sterling would not have taken her to court if she had more bullets in her chamber.
NardDogNation wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:NardDogNation wrote:As for basketball, Sterling was the only guy dumb enough to make the comments he did so carelessly but he's not the only owner in professional sports that is of that sentiment.To his credit, it was a presumably private argument with his girlfriend about her Instagram feed, not public comments like that dumbass Bundy. I imagine that kind of argument happens all over with dumb shit being said but no one is recording them, lucky for them! But man… hot coz your chick is posting a pic with Magic Johnson, not Wacka Flacka Flame or somebody else… maybe he's afraid she'll get a taste and start ending up in hip-hop videos. "walking with minorities"… The whole situation is unsavory.
He's a lawyer dude. He should have the street smarts to know that any form of communication via a device is essentially public. I say that because that kind of discourse could easily be recorded (as it was) or intercepted by a third party e.g. the government or some kind of hired hand looking for dirt. You would think that a self-made billionaire would have the common sense not to get himself caught like that.
You know, I've been assuming this whole time that it was an in-person conversation recorded… never even considered they were talking on the phone. I wonder if we'll get details on the full scenario of this recording.
DrAlphaeus wrote:NardDogNation wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:NardDogNation wrote:As for basketball, Sterling was the only guy dumb enough to make the comments he did so carelessly but he's not the only owner in professional sports that is of that sentiment.To his credit, it was a presumably private argument with his girlfriend about her Instagram feed, not public comments like that dumbass Bundy. I imagine that kind of argument happens all over with dumb shit being said but no one is recording them, lucky for them! But man… hot coz your chick is posting a pic with Magic Johnson, not Wacka Flacka Flame or somebody else… maybe he's afraid she'll get a taste and start ending up in hip-hop videos. "walking with minorities"… The whole situation is unsavory.
He's a lawyer dude. He should have the street smarts to know that any form of communication via a device is essentially public. I say that because that kind of discourse could easily be recorded (as it was) or intercepted by a third party e.g. the government or some kind of hired hand looking for dirt. You would think that a self-made billionaire would have the common sense not to get himself caught like that.
You know, I've been assuming this whole time that it was an in-person conversation recorded… never even considered they were talking on the phone. I wonder if we'll get details on the full scenario of this recording.
Actually, she could've been wearing a bug but she seems like an airhead and so I can't see her being that saavy. You might be right about it being an in-person conversation though. Either way, she's probably just a side chick. Why even bother talking to her on such a personal level? He should've had multiple irons in the fire, for when she started acting up, he could cut her loose. With his money, he could outright buy "love".
Goddamn, I sound evil, lol. I think I been watching too much Game of Thrones (Tywin in particular).
Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.
Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.
andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.
also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant asshole? is this not silly and inflammatory?
dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.
Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.
andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.
also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant asshole? is this not silly and inflammatory?
Donald Sterling is successful and rich. How does this situation possibly disprove anything. You don't have to be a nice guy to be successful...
Papabear's point was Dolan is not a bum because he is rich, not that Dolan is rich so therefore he's a great person. Sterling' lack of character is totally irrelevant to what he was saying.
dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.
Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.
andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.
also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant asshole? is this not silly and inflammatory?
Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.
CrushAlot wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.
Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.
andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.
also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant asshole? is this not silly and inflammatory?
Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.
no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.
now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?
Dagger wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.
Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.
andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.
also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant asshole? is this not silly and inflammatory?
Donald Sterling is successful and rich. How does this situation possibly disprove anything. You don't have to be a nice guy to be successful...
Papabear's point was Dolan is not a bum because he is rich, not that Dolan is rich so therefore he's a great person. Sterling' lack of character is totally irrelevant to what he was saying.
Doaln is a bum regardless of how he inherited his money.
He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.
dk7th wrote:CrushAlot wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.
Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.
andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.
also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant asshole? is this not silly and inflammatory?
Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.
now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?
DK I'm confused here. What parallel are you drawing between Dolan/Melo and Sterling?
mreinman wrote:Dagger wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.
Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.
andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.
also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant asshole? is this not silly and inflammatory?
Donald Sterling is successful and rich. How does this situation possibly disprove anything. You don't have to be a nice guy to be successful...
Papabear's point was Dolan is not a bum because he is rich, not that Dolan is rich so therefore he's a great person. Sterling' lack of character is totally irrelevant to what he was saying.
Doaln is a bum regardless of how he inherited his money.
He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.
I agree with you, I was just stating papabear's argument to prove the irrelevance of dk's post.
dk7th wrote:I think this goes back to a thread where you feel you were put down by Papa as Guns suggested. Seems a bit small to turn a thread about racism into a chance to get back at another poster. There is a much bigger issue here and it appears you are trying to mask your anti papa agenda. Wrong place wrong time in my opinion.CrushAlot wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.
Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.
andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.
also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant asshole? is this not silly and inflammatory?
Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.
now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?
NardDogNation wrote:Actually, she could've been wearing a bug but she seems like an airhead and so I can't see her being that saavy. You might be right about it being an in-person conversation though. Either way, she's probably just a side chick. Why even bother talking to her on such a personal level? He should've had multiple irons in the fire, for when she started acting up, he could cut her loose. With his money, he could outright buy "love".
Wouldn't have been the first time:
TeamBall wrote:By the way, was anyone else confused by the "I thought you were gonna remove that" comment?
Remove the pic from Instagram?
Dagger wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.
Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.
andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.
also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant asshole? is this not silly and inflammatory?
Donald Sterling is successful and rich. How does this situation possibly disprove anything. You don't have to be a nice guy to be successful...
Papabear's point was Dolan is not a bum because he is rich, not that Dolan is rich so therefore he's a great person. Sterling' lack of character is totally irrelevant to what he was saying.
this is what he said: "Dolan is a billionaire making millions each and everyday. I think that's success and a winner."
how you infer what you claim in your post from that statement is really over my head. either that or what you are saying is a prime example of doublespeak.
in any event, socrates and plato have something to say on the subject in "the republic"
i don't care about "nice." i care about whether money means you are a winner.
CrushAlot wrote:dk7th wrote:I think this goes back to a thread where you feel you were put down by Papa as Guns suggested. Seems a bit small to turn a thread about racism into a chance to get back at another poster. There is a much bigger issue here and it appears you are trying to mask your anti papa agenda. Wrong place wrong time in my opinion.CrushAlot wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.
Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.
andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.
also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant asshole? is this not silly and inflammatory?
Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.
now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?
i just said that this is a meta-issue. i say that money does not equate with winning. is sterling for all his money a winner? it's a philosophical issue that traces itself back to "the republic" of plato. the issue there was whether all power possessors were happy. those that were unjust, ie tyrants, no matter their power or wealth, were miserable and unhappy. those that were just, ie philosopher-kings, happy.
i see this modern issue of equating money with winning as echoing this age-old issue. it means a great deal to me, it has been a focus of mine for many years, and i ask that you respect that and not attempt to belittle me or dismiss this as a legitimate subject by trying to assert that it is either petty or personal.
DrAlphaeus wrote:TeamBall wrote:By the way, was anyone else confused by the "I thought you were gonna remove that" comment?Remove the pic from Instagram?
She said she was mixed and he responded saying I thought you were gonna remove that or something like that
dk7th wrote:CrushAlot wrote:dk7th wrote:I think this goes back to a thread where you feel you were put down by Papa as Guns suggested. Seems a bit small to turn a thread about racism into a chance to get back at another poster. There is a much bigger issue here and it appears you are trying to mask your anti papa agenda. Wrong place wrong time in my opinion.CrushAlot wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:Andrew wrote:dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.
Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.
andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.
also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant asshole? is this not silly and inflammatory?
Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.
now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?
i just said that this is a meta-issue. i say that money does not equate with winning. is sterling for all his money a winner? it's a philosophical issue that traces itself back to "the republic" of plato. the issue there was whether all power possessors were happy. those that were unjust, ie tyrants, no matter their power or wealth, were miserable and unhappy. those that were just, ie philosopher-kings, happy.
i see this modern issue of equating money with winning as echoing this age-old issue. it means a great deal to me, it has been a focus of mine for many years, and i ask that you respect that and not attempt to belittle me or dismiss this as a legitimate subject by trying to assert that it is either petty or personal.
If you strike it rich, you are a "winner" in a sense. Pulling a lever on a slot machine and hitting the jackpot makes you a "winner"
Being successful makes you a "winner" but of course it does not make you a winner if everything.