Dorkington

It's way too drawn out for me these days. I load up NFL.com or ESPN the next day and check it out via text. I'll watch a couple highlight videos of guys we draft, and be on with my life. Oh, and I'll argue about stuff here Fixed that for you. Going without cell service so you can concentrate on friends, family, and beautiful locations is awesome

Even with ****ty American diets, if Americans had "free" access to preventative medicine, life expectancy would increase. People would better be able to detect diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.

A few years back, sure. But he's old and beat up now.

Nope. That's why I asked. I just looked at measurables and was a bit confused. I appreciate the clarification, though.

Ah, so you were trolling with the title and I fell for it

Yup... if we ran them properly, CJ would have had a much better year last year. And Goodwin, probably

Maybe I'm ignorant.. but what does Sammy Watkins offer that Robert Woods doesn't?

Sorry, looks nothing alike to me. Not all black people look the same.

I believe that the other owners can vote to have him removed from ownership.

I basically agree with you. I'm just trying to keep an open mind for views that are the opposite of mine. Hence the questions. I think this is where the divide comes in. I see healthcare as an essential need. Many see healthcare as a luxury. If we have national defense, emergency services, public education, and comprehensive food stamp programs... why is healthcare something that is a "luxury" compared to those? This isn't a discussion of giving everyone everything for free, but rather getting people basic *needs* no matter what situation they were born/raised into. We have plenty of money and resources. It makes no sense for it to not happen. If there's a free market solution, great, go for it. I don't care if it's free market, regulated capitalism, or full on socialism. To me, everyone should have unhindered access to healthcare in this country.

Records are irrelevant. It's all about the playoffs, imo. I'd rather have a team with a 20 year .300 record, and 10 playoff appearances, than a team with a .500 record and no playoff appearances. But lets say that the Bills are as good as the Bengals, Dolphins and Jaguars in recent history. Why aren't the Bills getting it, then? Are they just not marketable?

You're purposefully being obtuse. I said that my "property" comment was said tongue in cheek. You can have all the final words. I have things to do. You win.

I said the Bengals and the Dolphins have in recent history. Then mentioned the Jaguars separately. That being said... during our playoff drought, the Jaguars have made the playoffs twice, Dolphins have made the playoffs three times, and the Bengals have made the playoffs five times.

There's no doubt about it that this is both a financial and moral choice. And there's no doubt that the moral parts are greatly effected by the makeup of the league. The NBA would be effected negatively financially by other racial slurs, or homophobia, but probably not to the extent an anti black stance would have. That being said, the NBA appears to be taking the stance of equality in every way possible, whether it's due to morals, or protecting the bottom line. It wouldn't surprise me if they took similar measures against other forms of bigotry from owners. It also wouldn't surprise me if it were more a slap on the wrist, or if the owner apologized profusely to save face right away. Yup. Fans were outraged. He quickly apologized. And I think he also put in time with LGBT communities or organizations after, as well. I don't think the team or NBA penalized him, but they probably could have. It depends on player behavior agreements, I'd assume. There was that Eagles WR who got in trouble for his racist commentary, though.

You quoted my response to this already, but I'll go ahead and requote it for you. Cheers. For clarity's sake. My tongue in cheek remark was in response to related commentary. NBA has generally taken a pretty liberal stance on social issues in recent history. If an owner came out strong against gay marriage, I imagine there would be backlash. Would it be like this? Who knows. Circumstances are a bit different, considering the makeup of the league. That all being said, this decision made sense from both a business perspective and a moral perspective. At least in my opinion.

I argued with people on the internet. Again.

You have trouble with reading comprehension. Until an administrator tells me that I'm violating site terms, I'm free to participate in this discussion. If I violate the site terms, the administrator has rights to apply punishments outlined in said terms. Kinda relevant. NBA fans and players won't stand for it. That effectively hurts the NBA brand. The NBA then takes the course of action to protect the brand. Pretty simple.

Every year, at my place of employment, we have to do training, and "sign" an agreement of employee conduct. My company specifically tells us to watch what we say/do in public, and that if it's bad enough, legal or not, that we can be fired. The reasons given for this are specifically due to representation of the company's image and branding. As much as he's an "owner" of the team, he's still an "employee" of the NBA, and I don't see how this is any different than what my work can do to me, other than they wouldn't fine me. They could sue me, if I damaged the brand enough, though.

If the NBA as a company feels that an owner does significant damage to the brand, then I don't see what the big deal is with the NBA ousting them. If the owner doesn't like it, then take the NBA to court, and we'll see what sort of agreements the owner made in order to become an owner in the first place. I highly suspect that Sterling agreed to "behave" and represent the NBA in the best of manners.

He's the "owner", his players are given contracts, and as such, can be considered "property". But really, it was a tongue in cheek statement hence the "heh" said in that same parenthesis. Glad to know differing opinions are met with "STFU". Pretty mature debate skills.

Ever been a part of a HOA? It's similar sort of thing... you own your property, but there are certain rules you have to abide by, otherwise the HOA can fine you, or in extreme circumstances, force you out. Now, lets take this HOA and add to the fact that it's effectively your employer as well, and is also a VERY big company, and you are a VERY public face of the company.

A) He's a very public employee of the NBA. What he does on his free time, effects his job, and the NBA as a whole. So it's entirely relevant. B) Having the opinion that black people aren't good enough to be in your presence, but are good enough to be in your employment (or as property, heh) is not far from attending white power rallies, imo. The NBA has every right to protect it's brand, and that includes not associating, or employing people who harm that brand on "their own time".

He has the freedom to say and do whatever he wants within the law, as a US citizen. However, his employer (yes, owners are effectively employees of the NBA) can fine/fire him for behavior that effects the "company" and it's reputation. Would you be surprised if your coworker was fired after your boss found pictures of your coworker in KKK robes? Further, what if said KKK robe wearer was publicly known as a representative of your company?

Ok, so removing regulations would decrease basement prices. Would they decrease prices overall? Would removing regulations ensure that coverage is more comprehensive, and that more people would have relevant coverage? Or is it just back to "if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it"? For the life of me, I can't wrap my head around any "solutions" that aren't either a universal healthcare system, or a single payer insurance system. I'm open to free market ideas, but I don't really understand how they solve things in this case, hence the (possibly) stupid questions. Is this just an assumption, or has there been proof of increased speed of price increases compared to before ACA? And is that a price increase for the same level of coverage?