Rob's House

There are flaws in this logic. First, some medical treatment is a luxury. For example, if I had unlimited resources I'd have my left knee operated on because I have a minor injury, but it doesn't inhibit my daily life so I don't waste the money on it. If I had a broken arm that would be different. As to us having "plenty of money" that's just simply not true. We can't afford to provide everyone with unlimited access to all the most advanced medical technology known to man. I'll use myself as an example: If I had unlimited resources I'd get an MRI tomorrow just to see what's going on with my knee. I'd have all the best neurosurgeons figuring out the best way to treat my slipped cervical disks. I'd take my daughter to the doctor every time she got a runny nose, and I'd get an annual full body scan just to make sure I'm okay. Not only do I not need any of these things, we don't have the resources to give everyone living in the country access to that level of care. There necessarily have to be some limitations on access. Most people agree, regardless of political afiliation or ideology, that there should be some level of healthcare provided for indigents. But at some point you have to have market forces kick in or you're going to sacrifice efficiency and innovation to the point where the net result will be a net decrease in the level of healthcare available across the board. That's refreshing (I assume, I've not reviewed that data). All too often people use the term "outcomes" as being synonymous with life expectancy. It's nice to see you don't.

Supposing they want a QB they believe they can get at 9, they get a proven WR to play opposite Josh Gordon, get their QB, and have an extra pick early in the 2nd, all for moving back 5 spots.

Are you measuring outcomes by life expectancy or are you using something relevant?

My sarcasm detection is a little off, but I'm pretty sure you're just messing with me here. Yeah, it should be interesting to see how this unfolds. I read the bylaws last night and there are two clauses that will be heavily scrutinized. The conduct clause, which I assume will focus on whether his private conversation is "conduct" for the purposes of the contract, will be key. If that's not found to be a violation they can't force a sale of the team. Also, the commissioner can't force a sale regardless, that has to be done by a 3/4 vote of the owners. The other part is a catch-all clause that is very broadly written and will be subject to interpretation. The league will say that it gives the commissioner permission to determine what is and isn't a punishable offense, Sterling will argue it only gives him the ability to determine penalties for violations of existing rules that don't have proscribed penalties. It's an ambiguous clause, the interpretation of which will likely determine the outcome.

Dude, I know.. I also know you switched it up to hide from the humiliation of pussing out on that Crayonz **** talking showdown thing. Also, I'm not arguing to argue and I do get the point of what you're saying. I just like my point better.

I just addressed most of this in the PPP thread, so I'm not going to do it all again here except to say that 1. you are completely misreading my points, 2. I didn't hear anything on that tape that resembles what you just described, and 3. Is there a bylaw that prohibits all private thoughts that diverge from the accepted politically correct views on race, and if not, which one did he violate? I'm out til tomorrow.

There used to be a good dude around these parts with a similar handle (before the aliens got him) and because you remind me of him I'm not going to lose my patience with you, but I am getting a little tired of repeating myself, so I'll say this and call it a night, and we can resume this tomorrow if we feel so inclined. 1. I did not misconstrue it as punishment. I responded to others referring to it as such. (pretty sure I said this already, I think more than once) 2. The NBA could have gotten around it with a public statement that they don't share or condone and are opposed to his beliefs, but that his personal opinions are not actionable. 3. Is there a bylaw prohibiting any and all thoughts regarding black people (and presumably other minorities?) that diverge from the accepted politically correct views?

Is it possible for you to be any dumber?

You're just having a problem rationalizing your position. The statments this guy made are not substantially different in principle from opposition to interracial relationships or gay marriage. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has someone close to them who they care about who holds at least one of those views. But they don't demonize them, wish harm upon them, or hope to see them destroyed by the proverbial lynch mob on account of having an unenlightened opinion. But a rich white guy (who incidentally employs a lot of minorities who he has made multi-millionaires) is afraid people within "the culture" will frown upon his girlfriend hanging out with black guys, and your dick gets hard watching him get ripped apart. You're a hypocrite, and so are all the pundits, players, rappers, and owners piling on this guy. Maybe you should be concerned about how you and yours will be treated if one of your opinions becomes unpopular. Of course, since you're a nobody apparently that makes it okay.

You're conflating the issues again. I was specifically addressing people suggesting what his punishment should be. As to the bylaws, I haven't read them but I'm curious what bylaw was violated. And to the moral turpitude clause, I feel like I'm arguing with a wall. Those clauses are usually reserved to conduct, acts, or crimes. I can't think of a single example of someone being held to have violated a moral turpitude clause on account of an opinion shared with one's significant other. Can you think of any analogous situations? I know you think a rich guy holding prejudicial views is one of the greatest threats mankind faces, but I tend to think you're having an emotional reaction based on your gut feeling about racism that is associated with real atrocities like slavery and Jim Crow rather than being a reasoned position based on any logical deductions you've made.

So it's okay to hold whatever opinions you may, no matter how offensive, and no one should pay much mind, unless people that work for you might find your personal opinions offensive, in which case you should be proverbially tarred, feathered, and forced to sell your business? I can tell you know your argument is weak because you keep arguing in the alternative with the business interest piece which has only to do with the league's self-interest as opposed to a just and equitable outcome, which you seem to believe this is, yet fail to state a case for. It is telling. When your first attempt fails, move the goal posts.

But he's not being ousted for conduct. He's being ousted for his opinion. I'm not even saying the NBA doesn't have the right (I haven't read the bylaws to know if he can be removed without cause), but I think the line that because he's rich and an NBA owner that his personal opinions (again, not public declarations) are somehow fair game for penalization is a disturbing standard. I hope no one ever learns that you once said something offensive in private and uses it to destroy you.

What does it matter whether he knew he was being taped? (and do we know that for sure or is that just something we've heard?) You're condoning penalizing thought. Not a crime, not an act, not even a public statement; a thought. Taped or not that's no different from your wife, friend, brother, coming out and telling people about an unpopular opinion you hold and you being penalized. Doesn't that bother you? Isn't that bigger than an 80 year old guy being worried about what his racist friends think about his girlfriend commiserating with black people?

Dude, you just don't get it. There's a difference between dissociating with someone for business reasons and punishing them. How do you justify punishment on that basis?

You're changing the conversation from one of what is right to one of might. The NBA could have easily gotten around this in other ways, but regardless, that's not what I was asking.

That's an interesting standard. So anyone who has a politcally incorrect thought that is exposed to the public is justly deserving of persecution?

Personally I don't see any rational basis for punishment in the first place. I can understand a dissociation for business or personal reasons, but how do you justify punishment for a politically incorrect thought?

If he'd said it in a public statement I'd see your point, but he didn't, so how do you get there?

Didn't think so.

No, it isn't. It isn't even close. Those two statements aren't even similar. I'll illustrate by using the same logical comments but taking the racially charged element out. If I say, Dan is slightly less intelligent than Jim, I've in no way implied that Dan should be enslaved or strung up by Jim. BTW, if you were being sarcastic, my bad.

Interesting how such an enlightened, understanding, and compassionate liberal like yourself derives so much pleasure from the suffering of others. Yours seems a narrow minded POV, but perhaps I just don't understand your rationale for finding this a just and equitable outcome. Can you explain it to me?

So are you guys covered under the prior generational oppression clause, or are you subject to ruin for impure thoughts? We might need baskin to clear this one up for us.

Using that term a bit liberally, aren't we?

I see. So it's not that there's anything objectively troubling about the kind of racism he feels; it's just that he had the misfortune to feel that way towards a group that has been discriminated against in the past?

If you only consider one side of the equation your perspective will be skewed. What we have here is a failed policy. It's an abject failure because it helps only a fraction of the people we were told it would help and at a substantially greater cost than we were told.