Banned for Life

[NorthHawk]

I would give her a go for a few times before I got tired of my Toy - Especially if I was 80 years old.

Eeeeeeeeeyech.

[edit- horse mouth, leather skin, overly sinewy, fake tits, unnaturally stretched face... dude... billionaires can do better... so can 40 year olds.]

I know I did!

Like was said above, too much plastic surgery.
The first time I saw her I thought she was born a male.

[savvyman]

Give me a break all you Jabroni's who are insulting this girl, her looks - and implying that you are "too good for this girl".

If she was around your workplace on a daily basis and smiled at you and flirted with you jabroni's - - you would all be in seventh heaven - and more than likely taking down the pictures of your wife and kids and hiding them in your desk drawer - just in case she came around to visit - LOL.

Now if this work place flirtation escalated to a point where she would consider to "go for a ride" with you -- you would be cashing in that amusement park ticket faster than you can say "James Carpenter is a Bust".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMtGQNSOcUs

[Eaglehawk]

I will be demeaning myself to state how naive your arguments are or to argue about how much "experience" I have. I have something to protect. So no more on that score. On purpose. Let the readers decide that. I can tell by how you write. You don't hit main points, but argue ancillary crap, then try to make it "stick", then if you think that won't work you will argue stuff I said prior to my answer, but you take it out of context.
Did you not read carefully what I wrote?

[Eaglehawk]

Give me a break all you Jabroni's who are insulting this girl, her looks - and implying that you are "too good for this girl".

If she was around your workplace on a daily basis and smiled at you and flirted with you jabroni's - - you would all be in seventh heaven - and more than likely taking down the pictures of your wife and kids and hiding them in your desk drawer.

Now if this work place flirtation escalated to a point where she would consider to "go for a ride" with you -- you would be cashing in that amusement park ticket faster than you can say "James Carpenter is a Bust".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMtGQNSOcUs

Hey Savvy, with those horse teeth are you kidding me? Man if she wasn't so fake I'd have jumped on that back in the day, but damn, that too fake to fake!

[Eaglehawk]

Like I said, I always felt he was more a bigot than a racist. Maybe he was an R in the past, and a leopard can't change his stripes, but to me, he seemed more of an Archie Bunker type, than a KKK type, after all he was dating a black gal. I see however the argument that states he was a racist. However the horseteeth gal that was his girlfriend does not feel he was a racist either. (I wonder why)?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... t-a-racist

[c_hawkbob]

Perfection's a pretty damn high standard in the real world.

[savvyman]

Perfection's a pretty damn high standard in the real world.

Part of what makes it so difficult for so many men (especially white guys) to judge female attractiveness is because this is what has been shoved down the American public throat for the past 40 years as the ideal example of female beauty.

[c_hawkbob]

Especially white guys? Not so much.

Other than that inaccuracy I agree.

[RiverDog]

Like I said, I always felt he was more a bigot than a racist. Maybe he was an R in the past, and a leopard can't change his stripes, but to me, he seemed more of an Archie Bunker type, than a KKK type, after all he was dating a black gal. I see however the argument that states he was a racist. However the horseteeth gal that was his girlfriend does not feel he was a racist either. (I wonder why)?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... t-a-racist

Tigers, eagle. Leopards have spots. j/k.

Not to be argumentative, but people can change their attitudes. It happens when you grow old. Remember that angry little man in the school house door in Forrest Gump, George Wallace? You wouldn't have known it had you met the same man 20 years after that event, kissing a black homecoming queen from the same university he once tried to prevent blacks from enrolling at.

My parents went through a similar transformation. Although they deplored the KKK as the terrorists they were, mom and dad were definitely in the "separate but equal" camp as I was growing up in the 60's. But gradually, they came around to accept that the world they grew up in was changing, and that they were almost compelled to change with it or be labeled a racist, which even then was something you did not want to be known as.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I thought the point was worth making.

[kalibane]

Like I said, I always felt he was more a bigot than a racist. Maybe he was an R in the past, and a leopard can't change his stripes, but to me, he seemed more of an Archie Bunker type, than a KKK type, after all he was dating a black gal. I see however the argument that states he was a racist. However the horseteeth gal that was his girlfriend does not feel he was a racist either. (I wonder why)?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... t-a-racist

Maybe because she's an "assistant" that has two Bentleys. I think you're a sad individual trying to justify racism every chance you get. An Archie Bunker racist doesn't send his wife around to his buildings pretending to be a government official so she can record the racial makeup of their tenants. An Archie Bunker racist doesn't tell people that he doesn't want black people renting in certain neighborhoods because the smell and draw vermin. An Archie Bunker racist doesn't say he doesn't want to rent to Mexicans because all the men do all day is lay around and drink. An Archie Bunker racist doesn't refuse to do repairs for black tenants and then when they complain threaten them with eviction. He walks through life thinking minorities are below him in status and that they should be grateful for what he allows them to have out of the "goodness" of his heart. He's the worst kind of racist. He doesn't wear it on his sleave like a KKK member, he just uses his money and power keep minorities from having the same opportunities as white people and then when someone calls him a racist he finds a couple minorites and lets them sit in his seats as if to say ... "See I'm not racist, look how nice I am to these two non-white guys". I mean did you do any research on Sterling or did you just repeat what you heard someone else say?

And you know what's funny about this? For the entire thread you've been trying to murder this girl's character and speculate about how sneaky and coniving she is. How she took advantage of this guy's private thoughts to get revenge and asssasinate his character. How she's the lowest of the low. You made up your own narrative to make her the angel of death, insisting that she's responsible for leaking the tapes, and saying she's a liar when she claimed she didn't. But now as soon as she said something you like, something that you think, helps your point of view, you're all over it like white on rice. And yet you don't even think about what you previously said. Why would she go through all the effort of setting him up to look like a racist and then claim he's not a racist. YOU MAKE NO SENSE. You just jump on whatever you think helps you out at the time. When you wanted her to be a liar and an opportunist you were willing to completely reject that both she and TMZ claimed the tapes weren't leaked by her. Or the reports saying Sterling was the one who asked her to tape their conversations. Now her word is gospel.

Now as to your previous post. I think it's pretty obvious who doesn't have anything to hang their argument on since you have resulted to personal attacks. The reason I laughed when Future brought up the fact that he was a lawyer in the last thread where he freaked out and left is because I have over 15 years experience working in the legal field and 10 more in banking. I pretty sure I know contracts. Most contracts are one sided. Mortgages are one sided in favor of lenders. Leases are one sided in favor of land lords. Music contracts are one sided in favor of record labels. Even your cell phone contract is one sided in favor of your carrier. Most contracts are not negotiated clause by clause. They aren't built from scratch. There is a lot of standard language and some of that language is purposely vague to benefit whoever has the most leverage in the deal. Contracts where people have equal footing are rare... And franchise agreements are not one of those exceptions, especially pro sports ownership.

The company granting the franchise has to have protections in place to make sure their overall brand can't be torpedoed by a rogue franchise owner. And especially in this case where there are millionaires (now billionaires) lined up to be sports franchise owners, the NBA didn't need Donald Sterling. Donald Sterling needed the NBA. When he negotiated the sale with the previous owner, the NBA came to him and said, "great... now sign this franchise agreement, and agree to abide by our consitution". Donald Sterling didn't get to say ... "well I really don't like this clause so how about we take that out". Nope... if he didn't like the terms of the agreement the NBA tells him to kick rocks and they move onto a new owner. The NBA has all the leverage and if you don't think they have vague language in that franchise agreement to make sure the leagues interests are protected in the event of unforseen disasters you're kidding yourself.

You flat out do not know what you're talking about not even in the slightest. Not on any point you've tried to bring up. It's like you just plugged into some agenda driven talk radio show and are just regurgitating the crap they spew and inserting tidbits about how you wished the world works but doesn't and which you've never actually experienced to know better.

If people "believe" what I type... I don't care. I'm just posting my thoughts. Maybe they believe it and maybe they don't but if they do maybe it probably has more to do with the fact that I generally choose to not not shoot off at the mouth on subjects where I know I'm not particularly knowledgable. You might want to try that sometime.

P.S. Don't come to me in a private message apologizing and asking me if we're cool again like you have multiple times in the past. I don't take this stuff seriously but have the conviction to stand behind your words or if you have something you feel you need to apologize for do it in public where you made the statements you regretted making.

[Eaglehawk]

Like I said, I always felt he was more a bigot than a racist. Maybe he was an R in the past, and a leopard can't change his stripes, but to me, he seemed more of an Archie Bunker type, than a KKK type, after all he was dating a black gal. I see however the argument that states he was a racist. However the horseteeth gal that was his girlfriend does not feel he was a racist either. (I wonder why)?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... t-a-racist

Maybe because she's an "assistant" that has two Bentleys. I think you're a sad individual trying to justify racism every chance you get. An Archie Bunker racist doesn't send his wife around to his buildings pretending to be a government official so she can record the racial makeup of their tenants. An Archie Bunker racist doesn't tell people that he doesn't want black people renting in certain neighborhoods because the smell and draw vermin. An Archie Bunker racist doesn't say he doesn't want to rent to Mexicans because all the men do all day is lay around and drink. An Archie Bunker racist doesn't refuse to do repairs for black tenants and then when they complain threaten them with eviction. He walks through life thinking minorities are below him in status and that they should be grateful for what he allows them to have out of the "goodness" of his heart. He's the worst kind of racist. He doesn't wear it on his sleave like a KKK member, he just uses his money and power keep minorities from having the same opportunities as white people and then when someone calls him a racist he finds a couple minorites and lets them sit in his seats as if to say ... "See I'm not racist, look how nice I am to these two non-white guys". I mean did you do any research on Sterling or did you just repeat what you heard someone else say?

And you know what's funny about this? For the entire thread you've been trying to murder this girl's character and speculate about how sneaky and coniving she is. How she took advantage of this guy's private thoughts to get revenge and asssasinate his character. How she's the lowest of the low. You made up your own narrative to make her the angel of death, insisting that she's responsible for leaking the tapes, and saying she's a liar when she claimed she didn't. But now as soon as she said something you like, something that you think, helps your point of view, you're all over it like white on rice. And yet you don't even think about what you previously said. Why would she go through all the effort of setting him up to look like a racist and then claim he's not a racist. YOU MAKE NO SENSE. You just jump on whatever you think helps you out at the time. When you wanted her to be a liar and an opportunist you were willing to completely reject that both she and TMZ claimed the tapes weren't leaked by her. Or the reports saying Sterling was the one who asked her to tape their conversations. Now her word is gospel.

Now as to your previous post. I think it's pretty obvious who doesn't have anything to hang their argument on since you have resulted to personal attacks. The reason I laughed when Future brought up the fact that he was a lawyer in the last thread where he freaked out and left is because I have over 15 years experience working in the legal field and 10 more in banking. I pretty sure I know contracts. Most contracts are one sided. Mortgages are one sided in favor of lenders. Leases are one sided in favor of land lords. Music contracts are one sided in favor of record labels. Even your cell phone contract is one sided in favor of your carrier. Most contracts are not negotiated clause by clause. They aren't built from scratch. There is a lot of standard language and some of that language is purposely vague to benefit whoever has the most leverage in the deal. Contracts where people have equal footing are rare... And franchise agreements are not one of those exceptions, especially pro sports ownership.

The company granting the franchise has to have protections in place to make sure their overall brand can't be torpedoed by a rogue franchise owner. And especially in this case where there are millionaires (now billionaires) lined up to be sports franchise owners, the NBA didn't need Donald Sterling. Donald Sterling needed the NBA. When he negotiated the sale with the previous owner, the NBA came to him and said, "great... now sign this franchise agreement, and agree to abide by our consitution". Donald Sterling didn't get to say ... "well I really don't like this clause so how about we take that out". Nope... if he didn't like the terms of the agreement the NBA tells him to kick rocks and they move onto a new owner. The NBA has all the leverage and if you don't think they have vague language in that franchise agreement to make sure the leagues interests are protected in the event of unforseen disasters you're kidding yourself.

You flat out do not know what you're talking about not even in the slightest. Not on any point you've tried to bring up. It's like you just plugged into some agenda driven talk radio show and are just regurgitating the crap they spew and inserting tidbits about how you wished the world works but doesn't and which you've never actually experienced to know better.

If people "believe" what I type... I don't care. I'm just posting my thoughts. Maybe they believe it and maybe they don't but if they do maybe it probably has more to do with the fact that I generally choose to not not shoot off at the mouth on subjects where I know I'm not particularly knowledgable. You might want to try that sometime.

P.S. Don't come to me in a private message apologizing and asking me if we're cool again like you have multiple times in the past. I don't take this stuff seriously but have the conviction to stand behind your words or if you have something you feel you need to apologize for do it in public where you made the statements you regretted making.

Kalibane,

Just because you are incorrect on this thread doesn't mean you have to get so personal.

Just because you are incorrect as to the law, I can see why you would get angry but again, you are incorrect. I

You and I can disagree on the racist stuff. Which is okay. You obviously have never heard of gold diggers.

And spare me the personal diatribe okay? Save it for someone who really gives a damn.

[Eaglehawk]

Like I said, I always felt he was more a bigot than a racist. Maybe he was an R in the past, and a leopard can't change his stripes, but to me, he seemed more of an Archie Bunker type, than a KKK type, after all he was dating a black gal. I see however the argument that states he was a racist. However the horseteeth gal that was his girlfriend does not feel he was a racist either. (I wonder why)?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... t-a-racist

Tigers, eagle. Leopards have spots. j/k.

Not to be argumentative, but people can change their attitudes. It happens when you grow old. Remember that angry little man in the school house door in Forrest Gump, George Wallace? You wouldn't have known it had you met the same man 20 years after that event, kissing a black homecoming queen from the same university he once tried to prevent blacks from enrolling at.

My parents went through a similar transformation. Although they deplored the KKK as the terrorists they were, mom and dad were definitely in the "separate but equal" camp as I was growing up in the 60's. But gradually, they came around to accept that the world they grew up in was changing, and that they were almost compelled to change with it or be labeled a racist, which even then was something you did not want to be known as.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I thought the point was worth making.

Oops, writing so fast I didn't check what I wrote, ha ha, thanks River, tigers, not leopards. And yeah, that was my point, I think people can change too, maybe not this guy, but it seems to me that true racists would not even touch a gal that was black and latino. I have never been friends with true racists so I don't know if this mindset is true or not. And yeah, George Wallace did change big time.

Old habits die hard sometimes but you never know.

[RiverDog]

I was bored and thought I'd do a little more research about Sterling. Kal's right, the guy has had a number of occasions in the past that would seem to indicate that this latest scandal wasn't just some slip of the tongue. But it's a mixed record. Sterling was given a lifetime achievement award by the NAACP back in 2009 and was preparing to do the same thing this year. Did they not know about his past? It seems to have been pretty well publicized for them not to have known. He's not a politician running for office or in a position where he was expecting some sort of quid pro quo, so I don't know why he'd give a rip about them if he had these deep seated views that he's being accused of holding. To say the least, he's been intimately involved in a league that's dominated by blacks. If he was really a true racist, would he associate himself so closely with the NBA? Can a person make these politically incorrect remarks about minorities and not be a racist?

Sterling's profile just doesn't add up. For every bit of information that points to him being a racist, there's another that contradicts it. I do think the league is justified in wanting him out, but I'm not convinced to the same degree that Kal is that the guy is a Confederate flag waving, cross burning racist.

[Eaglehawk]

I was bored and thought I'd do a little more research about Sterling. Kal's right, the guy has had a number of occasions in the past that would seem to indicate that this latest scandal wasn't just some slip of the tongue. But it's a mixed record. Sterling was given a lifetime achievement award by the NAACP back in 2009 and was preparing to do the same thing this year. Did they not know about his past? It seems to have been pretty well publicized for them not to have known. He's not a politician running for office or in a position where he was expecting some sort of quid pro quo, so I don't know why he'd give a rip about them if he had these deep seated views that he's being accused of holding. To say the least, he's been intimately involved in a league that's dominated by blacks. If he was really a true racist, would he associate himself so closely with the NBA? Can a person make these politically incorrect remarks about minorities and not be a racist?

Sterling's profile just doesn't add up. For every bit of information that points to him being a racist, there's another that contradicts it. I do think the league is justified in wanting him out, but I'm not convinced to the same degree that Kal is that the guy is a Confederate flag waving, cross burning racist.

I knew exactly what Kal was writing about, and researched this guy as well. And the reason I have concluded that he is not a racist(let me correct myself, "most likely not a true blue kkk racist") is because of exactly what you said. Even if you still think he is a racist as so many do, this stuff should give people pause.

I don't like painting people into corners. Kal seems to be convinced this guy is a hood wearing member of the KKK. I disagree. I think everyone knew he was a bigot and tolerated it, which was why the NAACP was going to give him another lifetime award this year. He was giving money to their causes. Why not? I personally thought they all were hypocritical to now come out with the racist tag when arguably knew what this guy was about the entire time. And loved his money too.

You know I have seen and deal with many racists in my time, all to varying degrees. You have the stab you in the back racists of Seattle, the in your face racists of the South, the "if you don't talk to us black guys you are racists of the North and East and everywhere in between. Not to mention the black racists that are all over the place in every American city.
You know what I have learned? That people are people. I love people, and have had minorities screw me over, whites screw me over, its life I guess. That's why I disagree with the racist moniker that was applied to Bundy before people realized that the NYT misled everyone by publishing excerpts of what he said and not the entire thing which immediately put things into context.

The guy is a NATIONAL HERO in my book. Not PC all the time, but quite a brave soul.
I love EVERYONE. I truly can say that. Even people I argue with and disagree with vehemently like Kal. Its who I am.

Welcome to the real world Riv. It's never black or white its always somewhere in between.

[RiverDog]

Welcome to the real world Riv. It's never black or white its always somewhere in between.

I was born in 1954, so I've seen lots of degrees of racism, lived through the civil rights movement, the MLK assassination, race riots, affirmative action, Rodney King, along with my own personal experiences. I think I'm pretty well established in the "real world."

Where I think you're right is that Sterling is not a sheets for brains racist. None of us know for sure what makes up this guy, but there's too many contradictions for me to come to that conclusion. I do think Kal is right in his contention that the other owners should kick him out of the league permanently and force him to sell his team. I just don't know how they will accomplish the latter and still not violate Sterling's private property rights. Although his behavior is completely unacceptable and should be whether you're Donald Sterling or Richie Incognito, you don't resolve one injustice by imposing another.

[Eaglehawk]

Welcome to the real world Riv. It's never black or white its always somewhere in between.

I was born in 1954, so I've seen lots of degrees of racism, lived through the civil rights movement, the MLK assassination, race riots, affirmative action, Rodney King, along with my own personal experiences. I think I'm pretty well established in the "real world."

Where I think you're right is that Sterling is not a sheets for brains racist. None of us know for sure what makes up this guy, but there's too many contradictions for me to come to that conclusion. I do think Kal is right in his contention that the other owners should kick him out of the league permanently and force him to sell his team. I just don't know how they will accomplish the latter and still not violate Sterling's private property rights. Although his behavior is completely unacceptable and should be whether you're Donald Sterling or Richie Incognito, you don't resolve one injustice by imposing another.

Was in no way implying that you weren't. Just a figure of speech from my favorite movie "The Matrix".

[burrrton]

Edited- redundant.

[burrrton]

Perfection's a pretty damn high standard in the real world.

I don't ask for perfection by *any* stretch- just don't completely mangle what nature gave you.

[burrrton]

Perfection's a pretty damn high standard in the real world.

Part of what makes it so difficult for so many men (especially white guys) to judge female attractiveness is because this is what has been shoved down the American public throat for the past 40 years as the ideal example of female beauty.

Yes, we only like the girl next door because she's been shoved down our throats, but you digging that "haggled porn star" look has nothing to do with the level of girl that agrees to film "Blonde in Black Silk" and "C*m Guzzlers II".

Look, again, I'm not going to argue about personal taste, but you'll just have to take my word for it: it takes more than checking the boxes for "long hair" and "size 2" to be attractive (at all) to some guys.

If all three of us are in an office together sometime, and you find that thing attractive, trust me, she's all yours.

[c_hawkbob]

Yes, we only like the girl next door because she's been shoved down our throats, but you digging that "haggled porn star" look has nothing to do with the level of girl that agrees to film "Blonde in Black Silk" and "C*m Guzzlers II".

Look, again, I'm not going to argue about personal taste, but you'll just have to take my word for it: it takes more than checking the boxes for "long hair" and "size 2" to be attractive (at all) to some guys.

If all three of us are in an office together sometime, and you find that thing attractive, trust me, she's all yours.

Everything about this post is nonsense. From your men as mindless sheep characterization to your complete misinterpretation of everything I've said, none of it makes sense ... what got you so defensive about such an innocuous observation?

[burrrton]

Yes, we only like the girl next door because she's been shoved down our throats, but you digging that "haggled porn star" look has nothing to do with the level of girl that agrees to film "Blonde in Black Silk" and "C*m Guzzlers II".

Look, again, I'm not going to argue about personal taste, but you'll just have to take my word for it: it takes more than checking the boxes for "long hair" and "size 2" to be attractive (at all) to some guys.

If all three of us are in an office together sometime, and you find that thing attractive, trust me, she's all yours.

Everything about this post is nonsense. From your men as mindless sheep characterization to your complete misinterpretation of everything I've said, none of it makes sense ... what got you so defensive about such an innocuous observation?

Bob, um... what are you *talking* about?

If you made a mistake there and were intending to reply to Savvy instead of me, since my reply was to him, not you, ignore this:

First, I'm posting on this because it's the offseason, and going back and forth about trivial crap is what I do.

Second, my post explicitly *refutes* the characterization of men as mindless sheep, or at least contends it works in both directions (toward clean, healthy, girls-next-door *and* toward ragged, leathery, plasticized beasts, depending on what you saw in your formative years that tripped your fancy).

[kalibane]

Okay I see now this is just Eagle trying to put on a show now. For some reason you think you have exposed me. Then you made it personal. Now you're straight up lying. I've never contacted you Eagle. The only communication between us not in public was you sending something to me to clean up something you said on the board and me sending you a reply to not be rude. Don't confuse courtesy with a desire to talk to you.

Unlike you if I have something to say to someone, whether it's an insult or an apology, I don't have a problem putting it in public where I have to stand behind or answer for what I've said. I don't know what this fixation is you've had with me recently but might want to find a hobby. I don't think your posts for all their bombast are accomplishing what you think they are. You're actually sitting up here and trying to compare Donald Sterling to Archie Bunker. *smh* And using a corrupt NAACP chapter (whose president stepped down as soon as they started checking into how he was getting these awards) as evidence. Well congratulations... you're the guy Donald Sterling is counting on. The guy that says, "he has a black girlfriend so he can't be racist"... "He got (paid for) an award from the NAACP" so he can't be racist".

I can't speak to the exact type of world you have lived in... but I do know it's pretty small and unchallenging.

[c_hawkbob]

Yes, we only like the girl next door because she's been shoved down our throats, but you digging that "haggled porn star" look has nothing to do with the level of girl that agrees to film "Blonde in Black Silk" and "C*m Guzzlers II".

Look, again, I'm not going to argue about personal taste, but you'll just have to take my word for it: it takes more than checking the boxes for "long hair" and "size 2" to be attractive (at all) to some guys.

If all three of us are in an office together sometime, and you find that thing attractive, trust me, she's all yours.

Everything about this post is nonsense. From your men as mindless sheep characterization to your complete misinterpretation of everything I've said, none of it makes sense ... what got you so defensive about such an innocuous observation?

Bob, um... what are you *talking* about?

If you made a mistake there and were intending to reply to Savvy instead of me, since my reply was to him, not you, ignore this:

First, I'm posting on this because it's the offseason, and going back and forth about trivial crap is what I do.

Second, my post explicitly *refutes* the characterization of men as mindless sheep, or at least contends it works in both directions (toward clean, healthy, girls-next-door *and* toward ragged, leathery, plasticized beasts, depending on what you saw in your formative years that tripped your fancy).

Well I guess this explains why it made no sense to me ... I wasn't trying to respond to Savvy, but I mistook your post to him as directed to me as my quote was at the top of you quote bubble in your response to him ... it's all very confusing, sorry.

I feel old ...

[burrrton]

it's all very confusing, sorry.

No problem whatsoever, my friend.

[Eaglehawk]

You're actually sitting up here and trying to compare Donald Sterling to Archie Bunker. *smh* And using a corrupt NAACP chapter (whose president stepped down as soon as they started checking into how he was getting these awards) as evidence. Well congratulations... you're the guy Donald Sterling is counting on. The guy that says, "he has a black girlfriend so he can't be racist"... "He got (paid for) an award from the NAACP" so he can't be racist".

I can't speak to the exact type of world you have lived in... but I do know it's pretty small and unchallenging.

Now that you are talking about issues again I will respond to your issues and attempt to pull both of us out of the mud. Corrupt as they were (NAACP) they are just as complicit in this as any other group. You can't blame just the President but his entire board.
I don't know if Sterling is truly a racist or not. But I don't think he is. I think he an Archie Bunker bigot as I've stated many times before.
You feel that given his past he is. I totally disagree with your point of view.

Again, Kalibane please stop with the personal attacks. My world is quite expansive.

I don't have a fascination with you, I have a beautiful family that I am fascinated with, instead. But do expect me to pop up whenever I agree or disagree with you. I will be first in line when I disagree though. Your opinions are not the end all on this forum. And mine certainly are not. At least I admit that.

[Eaglehawk]

Kal(We've been arguing for days now. Aren't you tired? Don't you want to call a truce? If not, we can still go on for the next year or two going back and forth with insults. if you want to keep on arguing, I don't mind at all. But at some point it becomes a waste of time).

Here is my olive branch Kal:

Have you ever been to Baja?

Nice place to watch gray whales calf. Ignacio Lagoon is really cool.

Take care,

Eagle.

[kalibane]

Eagle,

You started this thread trying to make a first amendment argument (which it isn't). Then you pivot off that and center on the fact that she was a gold digger who was illegally taping him rendering the tape unusable (which one, doesn't apply because this isn't a court proceeding and two is increasingly looking like a recording that was consented to). Then you decide to pretend that contracts are written out clause by clause with each side makes everything as specific as possible.

Remind me again where Aaron Hernandez contract says that they can void the deal for being arrested of a crime, a felony a mudrer... oh yeah that's right there is no specific clause to cover that, his contract was voided under the entirely vague "conduct unbecoming" clause. Do you think Aaron Hernandez wanted that clause in the contract? Do you think any player wants that clause in their contract? Of course not... but guess what it's there to give teams an out if the player does something they wouldn't think would happen like say oh start a dog fighting ring or execute an associate. And sure Hernandez people tried, unsuccessfully, to argue that because he has not been convicted that clause could not be used, but the Patriots successfully defended against the grievance saying it didn't matter because even without a conviction his presence hurts the team from an internal culture and external business standpoint.

Then you made this personal. You say it would be deamining to argue with someone as naive as I am (funny), "pathetic", "sorry" and then accuse me of the one making it personal? You try to drag River in on your side by calling him into your posts. Unneccessary. River and I were having a perfectly civil give and take conversation with zero animosity. You're the only one with a desire to make this personal. Then after you unleash a torrent of insults you turn around and ask for a truce in the next sentence? Only then did I take the gloves off and offer my opinion of you past you just being wrong on the issue.

As to your "truce". Were we at war? No. But I have no desire to go through this same pattern where you get out of pocket on the forums, offer a truce (whether in PM or now this time in public since I put you on front street), and then turn around and do the same thing over and over again. Sorry Eagle... I have no anger towards you but I find your unmitigaged defense of a documented racist (and sexist for that matter) who as early as 4 years ago was actively disciminating against minorities in violation of the FHA and basically equating him to a harmless old codger who just can't shake off the language of his generation, to be reprehensible. It says a lot about who you are as a human being.

P.S. Although it's somewhat amusing that you believe your passport stamps provide evidence of how not small your world is, I'd encourage you to learn what a simile is.

[Eaglehawk]

Eagle,

You started this thread trying to make a first amendment argument (which it isn't). Then you pivot off that and center on the fact that she was a gold digger who was illegally taping him rendering the tape unusable (which one, doesn't apply because this isn't a court proceeding and two is increasingly looking like a recording that was consented to). Then you decide to pretend that contracts are written out clause by clause with each side makes everything as specific as possible.

Remind me again where Aaron Hernandez contract says that they can void the deal for being arrested of a crime, a felony a mudrer... oh yeah that's right there is no specific clause to cover that, his contract was voided under the entirely vague "conduct unbecoming" clause. Do you think Aaron Hernandez wanted that clause in the contract? Do you think any player wants that clause in their contract? Of course not... but guess what it's there to give teams an out if the player does something they wouldn't think would happen like say oh start a dog fighting ring or execute an associate. And sure Hernandez people tried, unsuccessfully, to argue that because he has not been convicted that clause could not be used, but the Patriots successfully defended against the grievance saying it didn't matter because even without a conviction his presence hurts the team from an internal culture and external business standpoint.

Then you made this personal. You say it would be deamining to argue with someone as naive as I am (funny), "pathetic", "sorry" and then accuse me of the one making it personal? You try to drag River in on your side by calling him into your posts. Unneccessary. River and I were having a perfectly civil give and take conversation with zero animosity. You're the only one with a desire to make this personal. Then after you unleash a torrent of insults you turn around and ask for a truce in the next sentence? Only then did I take the gloves off and offer my opinion of you past you just being wrong on the issue.

As to your "truce". Were we at war? No. But I have no desire to go through this same pattern where you get out of pocket on the forums, offer a truce (whether in PM or now this time in public since I put you on front street), and then turn around and do the same thing over and over again. Sorry Eagle... I have no anger towards you but I find your unmitigaged defense of a documented racist (and sexist for that matter) who as early as 4 years ago was actively disciminating against minorities in violation of the FHA and basically equating him to a harmless old codger who just can't shake off the language of his generation, to be reprehensible. It says a lot about who you are as a human being.

P.S. Although it's somewhat amusing that you believe your passport stamps provide evidence of how not small your world is, I'd encourage you to learn what a simile is.

Since you have no idea what you are talking about Kalibane especially when it comes to the First Amendment issues I mentioned or my vagueness/specific arguments I have decided that you are so misguided and professionally incorrect that you are not worth my time in this area. Again I challenge you to read specifically what I read slowly, since you can't read, you are at a HUGE disadvantage.

No you are wrong Kalibane we were at war(figuratively of course), and will continue to be at war. And no, I take back that offer of truce to you. As a greater man, I should have known that pigs in the mud will be pigs in the mud. Glad to know now. But I will continue to disagree with you every chance I get on this forum Kalibane. Or agree with you. If I see fit. You can guarantee that. And no, it was not part of the "truce" I mentioned, but it is a promise.
After all of your BS comments about the forum and personal insults, especially for me trying to be the better man in the past with you,which only you can twist into something bad, and other back handed insults, which is okay, I have tried to just allow you alone to play in the mud since you appear to enjoy it so much.

Your main point seems to be that you feel personally that this guy is a racist and a horrible human being. You feel that me equating him to Archie Bunker is horrible and reprehensible. Then I have the right to let you know that I feel that you are making way too much of someone that neither of us knows. How can you say that anyone that does not have the same point of view with you on this issue is a "reprehensible" human being, is beyond me. You are just as biased(reverse) as Sterling! This just says as much about you as a human being Kalibane and now others can read for themselves how petty you are. I bet you don't even know what a tautological statement is do you? You are full of them.

And River can fight his own battles, he doesn't need me, nor you, trust me. And who the HELL do you think you are to even mention manipulation of people in this forum. Your pettiness astounds me. GET OVER YOURSELF KALIBANE. YOU AND I ARE NOTHING ON THIS FORUM. And I have exposed you for the empty cackling, conniving and petty shill that you are.
Now, I do admit you're a person of rare intelligence. It's rare when you show any.

Have you shot off your wad now Kalibane or do we need to go for round 15? Because I am ready to keep this going. Your turn bub. I'm starting to like the mud. I used to think Kalibane that you were a big pain in the neck. Now I have a much lower opinion of you.

[kalibane]

Eagle feel free to disagree all you want. This is a message board, I'm supposed to be scared because you're gunning for me? I already acknowledged it's clear you have been for the last few months. It doesn't matter. Your arguments are full of logical fallacies and false correllaries. I don't feel like that's some sort of challenge. It follows the same general pattern every time. I make a statement. I back it up with examples. You disagree, proclaim I'm wrong with no substance to back it up, or try to back it up with strawmen, like the first amendment argument. Then you just resort to repeating how wrong I am (again with no factual back up).

That you fail to miss the main point is unsurprising. The main point is there is a mountain of evidence showing that he is a Racist on an institutional level. And therefore is both an embarrassment and a hinderence to the NBA conducting business to their utmost potential and should be removed as a result.

The fact that you personally focussed so much energy on pure speculation about how the tapes were made and or released (which you are looking very wrong on both counts) but skirt by the decades of documented active racism on Sterling's part and attempt to mitigate his racism to harmless old man blather is mind blowing. The man denied housing based on race, not 50 years ago, not 30 years ago, 4 years ago but somehow in your mind you're just not quite sure that he's really racist. That informs on you. This isn't grey area. It seems like in your mind the only way you're willing to concede that racism exists in the world is if it's wearing a hood and burning a cross. And yes I find that reprehensible.

This is not about difference of opinion as a concept, Eagle, these forums are built on disagreements and we've had hundreds of threads spanning the PI forums where race was at the center of the debate and I've disagreed with many many people. You are the only one I've ascribed that adjective to and I stand by it. Now your sadly trying to draw a parallel between me and Sterling. *smh*. Do you understand how metaphors work? In order for me to be Sterling's equal I would have to come away from this with the thought that because I find your ideas completely objectionable, I will now hold that against other people that I associate you with. Hardly the case. You have proven yourself to be someone who in my opinion is willing to subborn some of the ugliest behavior you can possibly take part in. It's based purely on what you have presented about your self and your beliefs. You've earned the distinction and it applies to no one else. I don't believe it's petty simply because I'm not willing to induldge your willfull ignorance about Donald Sterling.

[burrrton]

I told Kal in a PM I wasn't going to get in the middle of this sh*tshow, but that felt like talking behind someone's back, which I don't like to do, so:

Eaglehawk, with all due respect, you need to step back for a sec and get a grip.

If you think Kal lacks the faculties, willingness, and ability to argue in good faith with you, you're bananas, and I say that as someone that has gone the rounds with him many times over the years (as I have with just about everybody else at one time or another!).

[Eaglehawk]

Eagle feel free to disagree all you want. This is a message board, I'm supposed to be scared because you're gunning for me? I already acknowledged it's clear you have been for the last few months. It doesn't matter. Your arguments are full of logical fallacies and false correllaries. I don't feel like that's some sort of challenge. It follows the same general pattern every time. I make a statement. I back it up with examples. You disagree, proclaim I'm wrong with no substance to back it up, or try to back it up with strawmen, like the first amendment argument. Then you just resort to repeating how wrong I am (again with no factual back up).

That you fail to miss the main point is unsurprising. The main point is there is a mountain of evidence showing that he is a Racist on an institutional level. And therefore is both an embarrassment and a hinderence to the NBA conducting business to their utmost potential and should be removed as a result.

The fact that you personally focussed so much energy on pure speculation about how the tapes were made and or released (which you are looking very wrong on both counts) but skirt by the decades of documented active racism on Sterling's part and attempt to mitigate his racism to harmless old man blather is mind blowing. The man denied housing based on race, not 50 years ago, not 30 years ago, 4 years ago but somehow in your mind you're just not quite sure that he's really racist. That informs on you. This isn't grey area. It seems like in your mind the only way you're willing to concede that racism exists in the world is if it's wearing a hood and burning a cross. And yes I find that reprehensible.

This is not about difference of opinion as a concept, Eagle, these forums are built on disagreements and we've had hundreds of threads spanning the PI forums where race was at the center of the debate and I've disagreed with many many people. You are the only one I've ascribed that adjective to and I stand by it. Now your sadly trying to draw a parallel between me and Sterling. *smh*. Do you understand how metaphors work? In order for me to be Sterling's equal I would have to come away from this with the thought that because I find your ideas completely objectionable, I will now hold that against other people that I associate you with. Hardly the case. You have proven yourself to be someone who in my opinion is willing to subborn some of the ugliest behavior you can possibly take part in. It's based purely on what you have presented about your self and your beliefs. You've earned the distinction and it applies to no one else. I don't believe it's petty simply because I'm not willing to induldge your willfull ignorance about Donald Sterling.

This is the argument that I wished you and I would have started with from the beginning. You still have a bit of a pomposity to your argument which I will address later as well. It's after midnight here. I promise you logic and your ability to refute my logic with my next post. Also expect me to respond to your personal attack to me about me being the only one, blah blah blah. Whether you realize this or not, this is a much toned down post and much more factual post than your previous posts(of course you will disagree). This last post of yours is something I can work with Kalibane.
Unfortunately its very very late here my fellow poster. I intend to address all of your points and prove to you why I think you are wrong in this matter.
I'll be posting in other areas of this forum but will be back here within 24 hrs in my attempt to help you understand how the law really works. You may be actually surprised that we actually have some areas of agreement. Which you've missed in my posts, the wind is whistling in your ears Kalibane as I have thrown you the trap door. Never mind. Speak to you then.

[Eaglehawk]

I told Kal in a PM I wasn't going to get in the middle of this sh*tshow, but that felt like talking behind someone's back, which I don't like to do, so:

Eaglehawk, with all due respect, you need to step back for a sec and get a grip.

If you think Kal lacks the faculties, willingness, and ability to argue in good faith with you, you're bananas, and I say that as someone that has gone the rounds with him many times over the years (as I have with just about everybody else at one time or another!).

Burr,
I need to get a grip. Are you nuts? Argue in good faith? That was never the issue. Thanks for your unsolicited advice. We both are grown men.
I don't need ANYONE on this forum telling me JACK about whether I should or not get a "grip' much less you.

You Burr get a grip. I know exactly where Kalibane is spinning and where he puffing and huffing. More than you even arguably.
Stay out of this mess Burr. Seriously.
If you get into this mud slinging fest I guarantee that you too will be sullied. And that will not be good for any of us.

Kalibane needs you to fight his fight as well?
What a PUSSY.
That proves my point as to why Kalibane was insinuating me bringing in River into his fight, when River tried his best to make his point while ensuring that both our positions were respected. You just proved my point that Kalibane is a petty pompous ass that thinks I should bow down to his BS.

Won't happen. BURR WITH ALL DUE RESPECT(And up to now I do respect you.) STAY THE F OUT.

And to be clear, the air is belng slowly cleared here, but you had to blow up dirt Burr. Good its okay, but tell your buddy Kal that I will be here arguing in GOOD FAITH my points 365 DAYS A YEAR, just to stop his twisting of the facts which few on here pick up on, but I do. And I will show this later. We are talking about one issue Burr. Don't mistake your inability to argue with Kal on your issue with my ability to argue with Kal on THIS ISSUE.

And yes good faith no problem, but spare me the Eagle get a grip. You should just have left your powder dry. As so many other posters reading and absorbing this. Cause trust me, while they may not all be in my corner, nor do I expect them, they don't like bullies. And that is exactly what you and Kalibane are appearing to be. BULLIES.

The fact that you popped up tells me that Kalibane knows he is a paper tiger, and is a weak man. How can you feel that breaking forum protocol and getting involved in this mudslinging contest would EVER come out good for you Burr. The guy reminds me of someone in 08 who spoke great rhetoric, but was just another hack.

Thanks Burr, I APOLOGIZE deeply for my tone and any negative things I may have said about you. Sorry bro. But from the bottom of my heart, please, please take my advice, stay out. I predict it will take a few weeks of me and Kal going back and forth for him to understand how flawed he is.
That's not time I want you to waste Burr. And while I don't respect Kal, I do see some value in his arguments. His pettiness, obtuseness, willful twisting of facts will not go on any longer on this thread at least. He also gives me the impression that he is the GOD(implicitly) of this FORUM. He nor you nor I are lords over others. Even though he does engage in nice prose. Truth of the matter is that I do at times agree with him. No doubt. But I'll be damned to agree with him on the points he mentioned in this thread. For me to let that go would be to be disingenuous to myself.
I don't care if the entire forum ganged up on me, I am always going to be hanging onto Kalibane throat figuratively if I see he is wrong.
In fact we are all respected members of this forum, why are you getting involved in this Burr?

This is not your fight, Burr.

[burrrton]

Kalibane needs you to fight his fight as well?

No, he doesn't, and that's obvious to anyone reading the back-and-forth, Eagle.

I could copy/paste a bunch of quotes from you demonstrating your complete lack of focus here, but I doubt it would do any good.

How can you feel that breaking forum protocol and getting involved in this mudslinging contest would EVER come out good for you Burr.

That's actually a really good question.

Carry on.

[kalibane]

May 03, 2014 @ 1:57 PM (10:57 AM PST). You just unleashed a post referencing River and my conversation no less than 5 times. His name had not been uttered nor had any reference been made to him up to that point. You also keep dragging my name into the side conversation you were having with him. The only reference I made to River was in response to you saying that it was unnecessary. For that I now apologize because even though my intention was for you to leave him out of this whole thing between you and I, it seems to have had the exact opposite effect. For all the times you gave me the edict to focus, you are the one that can't seem to remember recent history.

And now Mr. Pious, no name calling wants to cally me a pussy. I can't believe that you're trying to imply I called out to Burrton of ALL people to ride to my rescue. Have you seen the disagreements we've had over the years? I've had more heated disagreements with him than probably the rest of the forum combined. I think you're a little unhinged guy. Best of luck in your expansive life.

[Eaglehawk]

Kalibane needs you to fight his fight as well?

No, he doesn't, and that's obvious to anyone reading the back-and-forth, Eagle.

I could copy/paste a bunch of quotes from you demonstrating your complete lack of focus here, but I doubt it would do any good.

Carry on.

Not obvious at all. Burr. You should never believe someone who states something as fact, or when someone says for e.g. "The First Amendment argument is wrong".
Never. Much more to that little sentence. People may fall for it, but I do not.
Judging from your response, and Kals, I am not the only one here with a complete lack of focus. Thanks for staying out Burr.

[Eaglehawk]

May 03, 2014 @ 1:57 PM (10:57 AM PST). You just unleashed a post referencing River and my conversation no less than 5 times. His name had not been uttered nor had any reference been made to him up to that point. You also keep dragging my name into the side conversation you were having with him. The only reference I made to River was in response to you saying that it was unnecessary. For that I now apologize because even though my intention was for you to leave him out of this whole thing between you and I, it seems to have had the exact opposite effect. For all the times you gave me the edict to focus, you are the one that can't seem to remember recent history.

And now Mr. Pious, no name calling wants to cally me a pussy. I think you're a little unhinged guy. Best of luck in your expansive life.

You were the first to mention River, in an accusatory tone Kalibane. Here is your quote that drew my response: You try to drag River in on your side by calling him into your posts. Unneccessary. River and I were having a perfectly civil give and take conversation with zero animosity. You're the only one with a desire to make this personal. Then after you unleash a torrent of insults you turn around and ask for a truce in the next sentence? Only then did I take the gloves off and offer my opinion of you past you just being wrong on the issue.
After falsely accusing me of colluding with River, then you unleashed Burr. Now myself and the entire forum can see how PETTY, MANIPULATIVE AND SCHEMING you are. And even if you were right, some of our respected posters will not take kindly to you bringing in Burr to help you with your fight. Which was why I made that uncalled remark about you. I will take back the PUSSY comment Kalibane, because I am a man that knows and admits when he is a bit over the top.

[burrrton]

Then you unleashed Burr.

many on here will not take kindly to you bringing in Burr to help you with your fight.

Oh for pete's sake, Eagle- stop. I felt you were making little sense and your arguments were scattered, so I chimed in when I probably shouldn't have (I had nothing new to add).

[Eaglehawk]

Then you unleashed Burr.

many on here will not take kindly to you bringing in Burr to help you with your fight.

Oh for pete's sake, Eagle- stop. I felt you were making little sense and your arguments were scattered, so I chimed in when I probably shouldn't have (I had nothing new to add).

I'll never stop Burr. LEAVE. I think you make little sense Burr. So I guess we're even.
Talk to you on another thread bro.

[kalibane]

Um... but the first amendment argument is wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/opinion/r ... g-privacy/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/ ... story.html
http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_cas ... t-get.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Also from that last link: "The problem is that Sterling, as an NBA owner, had agreed to be bound by the NBA’s constitution. And that document gives the league’s commissioner, Adam Silver, broad powers to punish owners for actions including “conduct prejudicial or detrimental” to the league."

Care to tell me again how contracts are "as specific as possible"?

I can get more links if you like. There is no first amendment issue.

Lastly you quoted a portion of a post I made this morning. Just because this is fun I'm going back to quote the post you made 2 days ago with River's name all throught it. Plus at this point I'm thinking it's not beyond you to go back and revise it. Cheers!

[kalibane]

STOP THE BS KALIBANE. PLEASE. You do the same sht with River and now you are trying to do it with me. Only thing I won't let you do it son!
Your garbage is ridiculously shallow and disingenuous.
People believe you on here because you are a great writer, I give you that. But you don't know what you are talking about.
What the hell does my last post have to do with the First Amendment?
Just in case you wanted to twist that, as you do with RD's posts and other posts here ya go bro:

Sorry but again you are wrong Kal. Contracts are worded to be as specific as possible and apply to as many situations as possible or as few situations as possible. Contracts are between two entities Kal, if they want it vague it will be vague(rare that both sides wants k vague unless both sides are thinking IRS issues, or some third party potential problem, or atty does it for some other reason), but you just unwittingly proved RD's point.
If the k is vague, court might, just might, have to interpret the clause, which is something most attorney's would NEVER want. Its called a meeting of the minds Kal. There is not a one size fits all when it comes to contracts. General rule is that you want to be as specific as possible, litigation forum, Statute of Frauds, Assignment, Delegation, blah blah blah. etc, which is why you need attorneys to draft/review them on both sides. The reason for attorneys is because one side will want some portion vague, but the other side will want that same portion detailed to best help their client.
That's how it works in the real world.

I will be demeaning myself to state how naive your arguments are or to argue about how much "experience" I have. I have something to protect. So no more on that score. On purpose. Let the readers decide that. I can tell by how you write. You don't hit main points, but argue ancillary crap, then try to make it "stick", then if you think that won't work you will argue stuff I said prior to my answer, but you take it out of context. HAHA. I am amazed that people can't see through you. But I do. Stop with the name calling and let's call a truce, you really look sorry. Look at your responses to River:SORRY. And he doesn't even need me to fight his battles. You look pathetic Kalibane. And no, I have not worked with mortagage contracts Kal. This is not a mortgage contract case Kalibane. This is not an IP case. Stop trying to change the topic Kalibane. You are comparing apples to oranges with Riverdog and now with me for two different arguments. Your experience means zero here. Mine does, and I ain't telling you jack about what I do.
Did you not read carefully what I wrote?
No need to even respond to you since you are all over the place, with First Amendment garbage. We were talking about contracts correct? Answer my last post.
It is you that is lost in the sauce, your own dreamworld sauce.
FOCUS SON!!!! That's all you have to do is FOCUS and I guarantee you that you will make more sense. FOCUS on what I said about contracts. FOCUS KALIBANE on EACH WORD of my statement. Then repost.
Until then, I can't help you. Until then, you just look "lost in the sauce" to steal your line Kalibane. SERIOUSLY.

Still want to maintain that I brought Riv into this?*

*bold added to references to River (again sorry Riv but I'm not letting this blatant lie go at this point)