On a Scale 1 to 10...

[Phatscotty]

[notyou2]

No zero option?

I assume she is really ugly as her mother makes her wear that face shield.

[Lance Thrust]

If you are 81, ANYONE of the opposite sex under the age of 30 is a 10!

[DiM]

no idea who that person is so i googled her and to be honest i'm not sure if she's an ugly woman or an almost successful man>woman operation.
heck, i've seen more feminine persons in drag queen contests.





PS: and here's a far more feminine guy:

[DaGip]

I don't like racist people. So she can go fuuckk her self (along with Ron Paul and family).

[warmonger1981]

She is us butterface. Everything looks good but her face. Plastic looking face.

[Lance Thrust]

PS: and here's a far more feminine guy:

Umm...wait...that's a guy?!?!

[DiM]

a brazilian guy to be more precise. marcelo something.

[macbone]

Eh, she gets extra points for good deeds rendered to the human race.

[Phatscotty]

Eh, she gets extra points for good deeds rendered to the human race.

Both of these people are disgusting. Pretty sure V will wind up in jail for her 'good deeds'


http://digitalpublius.blogspot.com/2014 ... mouth.html

I hadn’t intended on commenting on the Donald Sterling, Los Angeles Clippers story in any meaningful way…until the NBA issued a life long ban on the tragically unenlightened Mr. Sterling, with the intent of forcing him to sell his franchise. This is extremely dangerous in an Orwellian sense. I’ll be brief.

The NBA Commissioner Adam Silver stated: “The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful. That they came from an NBA owner only heightens the damage and my personal outrage.”

What the adulterous Sterling said in confidence to his equally adulterous paramour is indeed offensive to me as well, though it does me no personal harm—his racist views are no more so because he owns an NBA team. I am personally more disturbed by the reality that what I say in a private moment can be recorded and then used to strip me of my property. This is a direct assault on Constitutionally protected free speech and property rights.

I freely confess to not knowing whether there are provisions in NBA ownership agreements that may have been violated by Mr. Sterling when his private words were made manifest--As an American, I am suspect of this sort of force.

It is an easy thing to protect speech we agree with, however, the nation’s character is best defined by how we react to speech we disagree with. This is the plumb line that trues the worth of a totally free society. There is no inherent right not to be exposed to the repugnant.

If we look at the history of American professional sports with an honest eye, beginning with Kenny Walker breaking the color line in the National Football League and then Jackie Robinson a year later in Major League Baseball, do you think all those owners bigotry dissolved after those moments? The other owners followed suit because it made economic sense to do so, not because they suddenly saw how despicable they had been.

There are very real consequences to all of our actions, but let us not be hypocrites! I have heard just about every black person I know say some very racist things about whites in private conversation—things they would not like their employers in corporate America to be privy to, including at times similar views on interracial relationships.

I have no problem with fines, but the consequences in the aftermath of Donald Sterling’s loathsome private views made public concerning ownership, should be decided by just that, the public. Not through bureaucratic force, but rather the marketplace. If you are sincerely outraged or “Damaged” by Sterling’s views, don’t go to Clippers games while he is the owner.

If the Staples Center is empty whenever the Clippers are in residence, or whenever they play on the road people stay away in droves, the marketplace will speak firmly: “Bigotry is profoundly frowned upon by decent folk.” If the marketplace does not respond by staying away, that will in fact speak even more loudly of where the nation is on interracial romantic relationships and our tolerance for racist ideology.

If Sterling had said these things publically, it would indeed be damaging for the NBA. But that a bigot exists in professional sports is not the least bit shocking. Bigotry, without regard to race creed or color is symptomatic of man’s fallen nature and if you have prejudices like those expressed by Sterling in your heart it is a sure sign of being a reprobate.

This is true whether it manifests as Sterling’s brand of overt racism, or a more subtle overall obsession with your racial identity to the point it blinds you to the faults within yourself or your own group.

If you don’t like what Sterling said don’t tune into Clippers playoff games, don’t go to the games. If the best players choose to take a large salary to play for him, the money is more important to them than their principles. If the best players of any race refuse to play for him, if people don’t support his team—he will have to sell.

That is how you decide how your speech should be regulated, not by bureaucrats, but by the public’s actions—simply banning him for his wrongheaded beliefs takes away a person’s right to hold wrongheaded beliefs—no change will occur, just more bitterness.

[macbone]

Here's something on the legality of the ban:

The NBA’s constitution – a collection of bylaws governing the operation of the league and agreed to by the league’s 30 team owners – grants the NBA’s commissioner wide latitude to punish behavior deemed “prejudicial” or “detrimental” to the league, according to Gabe Feldman, director of the sports-law program at Tulane University.

The constitution specifically allows for fines and indefinite suspensions. “It’s a broad power that Adam Silver has, and it’s given to him explicitly by Sterling and the other 29 owners,” said Mr. Feldman.

Under the terms of the NBA’s constitution, Mr. Silver’s decision has the effect of a binding arbitration decision and is enforceable in court, according to Jeffrey Kessler, a prominent sports lawyer with Winston & Strawn LLP in New York.

Overturning it could be difficult, said Mr. Kessler, as arbitrations are often only reversed when a losing party can point to fraud or a serious conflict of interest on the part of an arbitrator.

However, it's not clear if Sterling should be forced to sell.

Mr. Silver on Tuesday indicated he was moving forward with plans to force Mr. Sterling to sell the Clippers.

Under the NBA constitution, such a move would require the support of at least three-quarters of the league’s owners. But whether the owners would have grounds to oust Mr. Sterling from the league under the NBA constitution is a more difficult question, said Howard Wasserman, a sports-law expert at Florida International University.

Many of the behaviors that constitute a justification for a forced sale involve financial issues, like failing to make payments on time or gambling on NBA games.

A provision of the constitution allows for “the interest of any owner” to be terminated if he “wilfully violates” any other provisions of the constitution.

But Mr. Wasserman said it was unclear if “this sort of abhorrent personal behavior” is grounds for removing an owner. “It largely depends on how the other owners think about that question,” he said. “The assumption, I think, is that the termination power is reserved for someone who is mismanaging the team, not paying bills, that kind of thing.”

If I were a Clippers fan, I'd be calling for his ousting, and I'd do the same thing if Nick Sabin said the same thing. Sterling makes the NBA look bad, and his plantation mentality doesn't belong in the 21st century.

[mrswdk]

http://digitalpublius.blogspot.com/2014 ... mouth.html

I hadn’t intended on commenting on the Donald Sterling, Los Angeles Clippers story in any meaningful way…until the NBA issued a life long ban on the tragically unenlightened Mr. Sterling, with the intent of forcing him to sell his franchise. This is extremely dangerous in an Orwellian sense. I’ll be brief.

The NBA Commissioner Adam Silver stated: “The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful. That they came from an NBA owner only heightens the damage and my personal outrage.”

What the adulterous Sterling said in confidence to his equally adulterous paramour is indeed offensive to me as well, though it does me no personal harm—his racist views are no more so because he owns an NBA team. I am personally more disturbed by the reality that what I say in a private moment can be recorded and then used to strip me of my property. This is a direct assault on Constitutionally protected free speech and property rights.

I freely confess to not knowing whether there are provisions in NBA ownership agreements that may have been violated by Mr. Sterling when his private words were made manifest--As an American, I am suspect of this sort of force.

It is an easy thing to protect speech we agree with, however, the nation’s character is best defined by how we react to speech we disagree with. This is the plumb line that trues the worth of a totally free society. There is no inherent right not to be exposed to the repugnant.

If we look at the history of American professional sports with an honest eye, beginning with Kenny Walker breaking the color line in the National Football League and then Jackie Robinson a year later in Major League Baseball, do you think all those owners bigotry dissolved after those moments? The other owners followed suit because it made economic sense to do so, not because they suddenly saw how despicable they had been.

There are very real consequences to all of our actions, but let us not be hypocrites! I have heard just about every black person I know say some very racist things about whites in private conversation—things they would not like their employers in corporate America to be privy to, including at times similar views on interracial relationships.

I have no problem with fines, but the consequences in the aftermath of Donald Sterling’s loathsome private views made public concerning ownership, should be decided by just that, the public. Not through bureaucratic force, but rather the marketplace. If you are sincerely outraged or “Damaged” by Sterling’s views, don’t go to Clippers games while he is the owner.

If the Staples Center is empty whenever the Clippers are in residence, or whenever they play on the road people stay away in droves, the marketplace will speak firmly: “Bigotry is profoundly frowned upon by decent folk.” If the marketplace does not respond by staying away, that will in fact speak even more loudly of where the nation is on interracial romantic relationships and our tolerance for racist ideology.

If Sterling had said these things publically, it would indeed be damaging for the NBA. But that a bigot exists in professional sports is not the least bit shocking. Bigotry, without regard to race creed or color is symptomatic of man’s fallen nature and if you have prejudices like those expressed by Sterling in your heart it is a sure sign of being a reprobate.

This is true whether it manifests as Sterling’s brand of overt racism, or a more subtle overall obsession with your racial identity to the point it blinds you to the faults within yourself or your own group.

If you don’t like what Sterling said don’t tune into Clippers playoff games, don’t go to the games. If the best players choose to take a large salary to play for him, the money is more important to them than their principles. If the best players of any race refuse to play for him, if people don’t support his team—he will have to sell.

That is how you decide how your speech should be regulated, not by bureaucrats, but by the public’s actions—simply banning him for his wrongheaded beliefs takes away a person’s right to hold wrongheaded beliefs—no change will occur, just more bitterness..

Quite right. If you want to persecute people because they don't have the 'right' beliefs then go live in North Korea.

Maybe that's why Dennis Rodman loves Kim Jong Un so much? Fascist basketballers???

[macbone]

If she did tape him without his knowledge, yeah, she broke a federal law. According to her, though, Sterling asked her to tape him all the time to remind him of things he needed to do. She claims he agreed to be taped at the time and that a third person was there, who could corroborate her story if it's true.

What's up with Dennis Rodman, though? Is it just a big publicity stunt with him? Kim Jong Un reminds me of a toddler constantly crying for attention, but this guy's killed his uncle and a former girlfriend, apparently, on top of overseeing one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet. (Who's he competing with? Eritrea, maybe?)

Rodman has always craved attention. I guess this is just more of the same for him.

[danfrank666]

The phrase ' in the 21st century ' . What does that actually mean ? There is no cure for cancer. Humans haven`t reached the outer limits of our solar system. Not even another planet. Civilization is still monetarily based. Societies greatest advancement in the past twenty years is the ability to control the masses. What we have here is the ability of the left to destroy ANYONE they wish. From joe the plumber to sterling. I have my doubts that the tapes are authentic . Its sounds more like an accumulation . OR. Since the unveiling of his cancer fight , a fulfillment of consequences for his past bigotry. This is espns second attempt to expose white on black racism ( riley cooper). A sports network interjecting itself politically to arouse the young voters of tomorrow. We are in the 21st century . to me it means moving forward and yet in so MANY ways its two steps back.

[mrswdk]

Societies greatest advancement in the past twenty years is the ability to control the masses

[patches70]

If she did tape him without his knowledge, yeah, she broke a federal law.

She didn't break any federal law. Federal law allows for taping of conversations so long as at least one of the people being recorded knows of the recording and consents. It's called the one party consent law, and 38 states and the District of Columbia use this law. She knew of the recording so it's perfectly legal from a federal stand point.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... iPQ6K4Pjaw

State laws are another matter all together. As you can see, one party consent laws only apply to 38 states, I live in Virginia. I can record any phone call, conversation I want so long as I am part of that conversation and I don't have to tell the other party(s) that the conversation is being recorded.

But, I believe this happened in California? California operates under the "All Party Consent Law", so the chick broke state law if Sterling didn't know about the recording.


Now you may have been talking about federal wire tapping laws, which there are, but that doesn't apply in this case at all. Wiretapping laws are third parties not even involved in the conversation being recorded. It applies to cops as well as private citizens. You can't go recording two other people having a conversation without them knowing about it or in the case of the cops, a court order allowing you to record the phone conversation without the parties knowing.

Then there are eavesdropping laws, that affect "One party consent laws". What if you hear a conversation but aren't part of it? Can you record it? Well, Illinois says that's ok, it's only illegal when you eavesdrop on conversations that you can't hear. If you are in earshot of the conversations, according to Illinois, then that's legal to record. Not so with, say, Michigan.

What's strange about Illinois is that they are an "All party consent law" state, but that say it's ok to eavesdrop. Very strange indeed. But even that is being debated in the legal realm it seems and it's not all that clear.

Companies on the other hand, tend to always announce the taping of telephone calls before hand, even in one party consent states. Even though federal law allows them to not have to tell you. But by announcing before hand that they are recording the call complies with all party consent law states because you could go ahead and hang up if you didn't want to be recorded, thus you are giving permission to be recorded by continuing the phone call.

Sterling's ex girl friend didn't violate any federal laws, but she sure as hell could have violated California state law. She didn't break any wiretapping laws at all, state or otherwise either, since she wasn't wiretapping (obviously).

[Phatscotty]

If she did tape him without his knowledge, yeah, she broke a federal law.

She didn't break any federal law. Federal law allows for taping of conversations so long as at least one of the people being recorded knows of the recording and consents. It's called the one party consent law, and 38 states and the District of Columbia use this law. She knew of the recording so it's perfectly legal from a federal stand point.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... iPQ6K4Pjaw

State laws are another matter all together. As you can see, one party consent laws only apply to 38 states, I live in Virginia. I can record any phone call, conversation I want so long as I am part of that conversation and I don't have to tell the other party(s) that the conversation is being recorded.

But, I believe this happened in California? California operates under the "All Party Consent Law", so the chick broke state law if Sterling didn't know about the recording.


Now you may have been talking about federal wire tapping laws, which there are, but that doesn't apply in this case at all. Wiretapping laws are third parties not even involved in the conversation being recorded. It applies to cops as well as private citizens. You can't go recording two other people having a conversation without them knowing about it or in the case of the cops, a court order allowing you to record the phone conversation without the parties knowing.

Then there are eavesdropping laws, that affect "One party consent laws". What if you hear a conversation but aren't part of it? Can you record it? Well, Illinois says that's ok, it's only illegal when you eavesdrop on conversations that you can't hear. If you are in earshot of the conversations, according to Illinois, then that's legal to record. Not so with, say, Michigan.

What's strange about Illinois is that they are an "All party consent law" state, but that say it's ok to eavesdrop. Very strange indeed. But even that is being debated in the legal realm it seems and it's not all that clear.

Companies on the other hand, tend to always announce the taping of telephone calls before hand, even in one party consent states. Even though federal law allows them to not have to tell you. But by announcing before hand that they are recording the call complies with all party consent law states because you could go ahead and hang up if you didn't want to be recorded, thus you are giving permission to be recorded by continuing the phone call.

Sterling's ex girl friend didn't violate any federal laws, but she sure as hell could have violated California state law. She didn't break any wiretapping laws at all, state or otherwise either, since she wasn't wiretapping (obviously).

That's a great point, and makes V's statement about 'running for president so I can change the law" even more whacky since it isn't a federal law she broke but a state law. Maybe she should become governor first.....baby steps V, baby steps...

Something else V said "Donald Sterling is NOT a racist" Good luck crammin that back in the horse's ass

[patches70]

That's a great point, and makes V's statement about 'running for president so I can change the law" even more whacky since it isn't a federal law she broke but a state law. Maybe she should become governor first.....baby steps V, baby steps...

I didn't know she'd said anything like that, but she isn't the brightest light on the tree it seems. I haven't paid much attention at all to this because it's all so stupid.
I mean, Sterling is just some old racist or bigoted asshole, like Jeremiah Wright. Who gives a shit what they think?

Hahaha!