Jump to content

Artificial Outrage?


smitty

Recommended Posts

Got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. To much media pressure. The league had to take action and quickly. Why is the public outraged? Damning evidence I'd say. This was a no brainer. Why not 30 years ago? Economics. Nothing has changed. Money still talks. But if there is insurmountable evidence against you, and so much media and public pressure, action must be taken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NAALCP says the NBA didn't go far enough against Sterling.  What's interesting is that Sterling contributed big bucks to the local chapter, in LA, of the NAALCP.  I wonder if they gave that money back?   Folks, it's more than about some being truly outraged.  But -- what is the real reason?? 

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/30/naacp-sterling-sanctions-dont-go-far-enough/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are insinuating that the outrage was artificial. How would they know if a black person felt offended?They are not black; therefore, they are not able to say yay or nay. I know people who were really upset about what was said. I don't care, I feel sorry for the guy. He is incredibly ignorant, because being a racist in itself is illogical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are insinuating that the outrage was artificial. How would they know if a black person felt offended?They are not black; therefore, they are not able to say yay or nay. I know people who were really upset about what was said. I don't care, I feel sorry for the guy. He is incredibly ignorant, because being a racist in itself is illogical.

Big, let me repeat:  This guy has been doing this for "33 years"!  Again -- my only question is why now?!  He gave big bucks to NAALCP.  Nothing was ever said.  Again -- WHY NOW?!  This is where the artificial question comes into play.  If it's artificial, then what is the real reason, after 33 years, to attack this man.  Could there be more here then meets the eye?  Big -- would you like to tackle this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are insinuating that the outrage was artificial. How would they know if a black person felt offended?They are not black; therefore, they are not able to say yay or nay. I know people who were really upset about what was said. I don't care, I feel sorry for the guy. He is incredibly ignorant, because being a racist in itself is illogical.


You don't have to be black or white,or Jewish or Asian or any other race to recognize racism. You simply have to put yourself in that persons place to understand.

if you are offended when someone discriminates, or makes offensive statements about someone of your race, religion background, you rightfully should be. If someone does the same against someone not of your ethnicity or background you should be equally offended. If not you likely suffer from the same affliction as the perpetrator. That's actually where the problem lies. When you don't stand up for all people. Probably should start with the people closest to you. If we are to make the change we have to take a hard look at ourselves.

all races suffer from racism, I've have, you have, we all have. Sometimes when we don't get what we want, we are quick to look for other reasons than our own mistakes or failures to put the blame on. I've worked with many races all over the world and I to had thoughts of being discriminated against. In fact maybe I was not just qualified for the position. My point is, racism and discrimination is everywhere to include our minds.

This guy is a racist. I don't have to be of your race to see that. A blind man could recognize that. And maybe we should be blind. Then we could see more clearly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
    • See why I don't trust my Hogs?
    • Come on dude, don’t take anything away from the kids on the field. If you want to talk uncharacteristic, we made what 3 or 4 errors in game one. Y’all had 2 EARNED runs.  Defense is normally our strong suit. Your ace didn’t strike out a single one of our kids. Like I said also, you did not out hit us in game 1. Hell you barley out hit us in game 2. We had all the uncharacteristic walks. Josh pitched a hell of a game is what made that game what it was.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...