We've been saying it all along.
They had a golden opportunity AND BLEW IT.
They had a golden opportunity AND BLEW IT.
[AUDIO] Donald Sterling - "Don't bring black people to my games" [AGREES TO SELL TEAM]
- Thread starter HHR
- Start date
I definitely feel you. But, we have to stop with this arrogance, like we knew what was going on behind the scenes. You're right, they could have easily sat out, but, they decided not to.
Why are we puttin' the weight of "awaken the black community" on 12 athletes? You're right, a championship is great thing. But, you nor I will trully know how it feels to work all year for it, sacifice and be ran through the mud for not having one, then, in one audio tape, be told your weak, a slave, a c00n, because you find it hard to just throw it away. And still, who's to say they didn't want to sit out. From my understanding they did, but, ultimately decided against it.
It's easy to make that decision from behind your PC/phone because there's no backslash for your's and my opinion or woulda-shoulda-coulda.
The fact of the matter is; it should have not gotten this and wouldn't have, had the owners and David Stern done the right thing years ago.
Sterling is being forced out and has had the hammer dropped on him. What are we still complaining about?
We wanted to be impressed even further by athletes we demand to be impressed by all day?
We're quick to call them "slaves," but, are you ready admit your complicity in their "bondage"?
"Well, I didn't watch any of the Clipper games"
That's the excuse we've been using.Wouldn't it have been a better moment had all the black fans, the black employees of the Staples Center had not come to work? See, it starts gettin' complicated when you try to assign blame to people, simply because they didn't do enough to impress you. The end result is the same; Sterling's out. We show our ADD when we're upset they can't oust a million, who's head of a billion dollar company, in less than 2 weeks.
Again, what needed to happen, happened without a sit-out. I don't understand the disappointment.
I'll take that. But, I also understand; Donald Sterling isn't some outlier or blout/stain on "Post racial" America.
The illest thing he spoke on and exposed is that there is a culture of people, up top, who [EDIT:don't] care about us.
I'm more hot 3 people have actually been jailed over a global economic collapse, than than Chris Paul, Blake Griffin sitting out a game.
Last edited:
The Nigerian
The Realest Member of TheColi
The Arab Spring was started by one fruit vendor that couldn't take it anymore.
The American Awakening will be started by someone just as marginalized. Not by people who have so much of their existence tied up with the oppressive forces in society.
The American Awakening will be started by someone just as marginalized. Not by people who have so much of their existence tied up with the oppressive forces in society.
this is a few weeks old but still one of the most amusing takes on sterling:
@1:10 - LOL @ sterling bringing his friends in the locker room to show off his players & bragging about their bodies while referring to them as "bucks" and "studs".
allie laforce is sitting there appalled at the story.
WHAT REALLY INTERESTING, is how the players knew how sterling was, even back then. thats why they couldnt re-sign players or get quality free agents. thats prolly why CP3 demanded a black coach.
@1:10 - LOL @ sterling bringing his friends in the locker room to show off his players & bragging about their bodies while referring to them as "bucks" and "studs".
allie laforce is sitting there appalled at the story.WHAT REALLY INTERESTING, is how the players knew how sterling was, even back then. thats why they couldnt re-sign players or get quality free agents. thats prolly why CP3 demanded a black coach.
Last edited:
Holder: Donald Sterling not the real issue
(CNN)
- Outbursts like Donald Sterling's recorded rant or Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's controversial comments are not the real problem, says Attorney General Eric Holder.
"More subtle" forms of racism that "cut deeper" cause the real harm, he argued Saturday.
In a commencement speech at Morgan State University, a historically black college in Baltimore, Holder used the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that desegregated schools to highlight inequalities that persist today.
Referencing the "systematic and unwarranted racial disparities" of the criminal justice system and the "moral failings" of voter identification laws, Holder argued legitimate problems usually get lost in the din over major public incidents.
Most recently, Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling caused outrage after he went on a racist rant in a leaked audio recording. Bundy, who is challenging the federal government over land fees, suggested blacks may be better off as slaves.
While it is good to see such remarks condemned swiftly and widely, Holder said, it often misses the point.
"If we focus solely on these incidents - on outlandish statements that capture national attention and spark outrage on Facebook and Twitter - we are likely to miss the more hidden, and more troubling, reality behind the headlines," he said.
"Policies that disenfranchise specific groups are more pernicious than hateful rants," he continued. "Proposals that feed uncertainty, question the desire of a people to work, and relegate particular Americans to economic despair are more malignant than intolerant public statements, no matter how many eyebrows the outbursts might raise. And a criminal justice system that treats groups of people differently - and punishes them unequally - has a much more negative impact than misguided words that we can reject out of hand."
The attorney general went on to speak to specific issues.
In particular, he addressed the higher incarceration rates and longer sentences that African-American men face. African-American men have received sentences that are nearly 20% longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes, said Holder, citing the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Black men are also more than six times as likely as white men to be incarcerated, according to the Pew Research Center.
While schools may no longer be segregated legally, some districts have moved in that direction, said Holder, also arguing that disciplinary policies often unfairly target young black men.
"In too many of our school districts, significant divisions persist and desegregation has reoccurred - including zero-tolerance school discipline practices that, while well-intentioned and aimed at promoting school safety, affect black males at a rate three times higher than their white peers," he said.
Laws may forbid racism, but "there are other policies that too easily escape such scrutiny because they have the appearance of being race-neutral. Their impacts, however, are anything but," he said.
To Holder, voter identification laws exemplify the problem best.
"In too many jurisdictions, new types of restrictions are justified as attempts to curb an epidemic of voter fraud that - in reality - has never been shown to exist," he said, and instead they "disproportionately disenfranchise African-Americans, Hispanics, other communities of color, and vulnerable populations such as the elderly."
Holder even went after Chief Justice John Roberts. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions. Last June, the court struck down a key provision of the historic Civil Rights Act.
At the time, Roberts said that the section was no longer necessary because "our country has changed" for the better. Holder disagrees.
"Chief Justice John Roberts has argued that the path to ending racial discrimination is to give less consideration to the issue of race altogether. This presupposes that racial discrimination is at a sufficiently low ebb that it doesn't need to be actively confronted," he said.
Holder concluded by calling for a national conversation about race. More dialogue, he argued, can lead to more progress.
–CNN's Evan Perez contributed to this report.
(CNN)
- Outbursts like Donald Sterling's recorded rant or Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's controversial comments are not the real problem, says Attorney General Eric Holder.
"More subtle" forms of racism that "cut deeper" cause the real harm, he argued Saturday.
In a commencement speech at Morgan State University, a historically black college in Baltimore, Holder used the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that desegregated schools to highlight inequalities that persist today.
Referencing the "systematic and unwarranted racial disparities" of the criminal justice system and the "moral failings" of voter identification laws, Holder argued legitimate problems usually get lost in the din over major public incidents.
Most recently, Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling caused outrage after he went on a racist rant in a leaked audio recording. Bundy, who is challenging the federal government over land fees, suggested blacks may be better off as slaves.
While it is good to see such remarks condemned swiftly and widely, Holder said, it often misses the point.
"If we focus solely on these incidents - on outlandish statements that capture national attention and spark outrage on Facebook and Twitter - we are likely to miss the more hidden, and more troubling, reality behind the headlines," he said.
"Policies that disenfranchise specific groups are more pernicious than hateful rants," he continued. "Proposals that feed uncertainty, question the desire of a people to work, and relegate particular Americans to economic despair are more malignant than intolerant public statements, no matter how many eyebrows the outbursts might raise. And a criminal justice system that treats groups of people differently - and punishes them unequally - has a much more negative impact than misguided words that we can reject out of hand."
The attorney general went on to speak to specific issues.
In particular, he addressed the higher incarceration rates and longer sentences that African-American men face. African-American men have received sentences that are nearly 20% longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes, said Holder, citing the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Black men are also more than six times as likely as white men to be incarcerated, according to the Pew Research Center.
While schools may no longer be segregated legally, some districts have moved in that direction, said Holder, also arguing that disciplinary policies often unfairly target young black men.
"In too many of our school districts, significant divisions persist and desegregation has reoccurred - including zero-tolerance school discipline practices that, while well-intentioned and aimed at promoting school safety, affect black males at a rate three times higher than their white peers," he said.
Laws may forbid racism, but "there are other policies that too easily escape such scrutiny because they have the appearance of being race-neutral. Their impacts, however, are anything but," he said.
To Holder, voter identification laws exemplify the problem best.
"In too many jurisdictions, new types of restrictions are justified as attempts to curb an epidemic of voter fraud that - in reality - has never been shown to exist," he said, and instead they "disproportionately disenfranchise African-Americans, Hispanics, other communities of color, and vulnerable populations such as the elderly."
Holder even went after Chief Justice John Roberts. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law banning the use of racial criteria in college admissions. Last June, the court struck down a key provision of the historic Civil Rights Act.
At the time, Roberts said that the section was no longer necessary because "our country has changed" for the better. Holder disagrees.
"Chief Justice John Roberts has argued that the path to ending racial discrimination is to give less consideration to the issue of race altogether. This presupposes that racial discrimination is at a sufficiently low ebb that it doesn't need to be actively confronted," he said.
Holder concluded by calling for a national conversation about race. More dialogue, he argued, can lead to more progress.
–CNN's Evan Perez contributed to this report.
I remember a post, on SOHH, sayin' the same thing. But, it was women he bought and it was sexual comments.
THIS>>>CP3, Doc Rivers, Blake Griffin
This is what I want; the black Attorney General of the United States makin' statements about racism being really real.
When that supreme court ruling regarding the banishment of racial preference in college admissions came out it was only a topic of discussion for maybe 4 hours amongst black folk on social media and then it was on to the next sports/celebrity distraction smh
I need to read on that, too, myself.
Here you go breh
Supreme Court Upholds Bans on Racial Preferences in College Admissions
Andrew Burton, Getty Images
Students protest in support of affirmative action outside the Supreme Court last fall, when the justices heard arguments on a challenge to a Michigan ballot measure prohibiting racial preferences in college admissions. On Tuesday the court ruled that the ballot measure passed constitutional muster.
Enlarge Image
By Peter Schmidt
Washington
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld voter-passed bans on racial preferences in public-college admissions in a case involving a challenge to Michigan’s 2006 adoption of such a measure.
In a 6-to-2 decision handed down on Tuesday, the court’s majority rejected the argument that a voter-approved amendment to Michigan’s Constitution discriminated against that state’s minority residents by precluding them from lobbying for the same admissions advantages routinely sought by other constituencies, such as university alumni.
A majority of the justices not only overturned a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which had struck down Michigan’s measure, but also made clear that they would reject any similarly argued challenge to the bans on race-conscious admissions adopted by voters in Arizona, California, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Washington.
The court’s controlling opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said the Sixth Circuit’s decision had called into question "other long-settled rulings on similar state policies," including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s upholding of a ban on race-conscious admissions passed by California voters in 1996. Were the Supreme Court to affirm the Sixth Circuit’s decision, Justice Kennedy wrote, it "in essence would announce a finding that the past 15 years of state public debate on this issue have been improper."
In overturning the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, Justice Kennedy was joined by the four other members of the high court’s conservative wing—Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—and by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is generally considered a liberal on matters related to race.
Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor wrote a dissent, signed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in which she argued that the amendment to Michigan’s Constitution had created "two very different processes through which a Michigan citizen is permitted to influence the admissions policies of the state’s universities: one for persons interested in race-sensitive admissions policies and one for everyone else."
Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from hearing the case, which she had dealt with in her former capacity as U.S. solicitor general. The justices’ leanings in the case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (No. 12-682), had been fairly evident in when they heard arguments last fall, and only Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor voiced sharp criticisms of the Michigan measure.
Deciding Political Advantage
The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday has no bearing on the general legality of race-conscious admissions policies, which the justices most recently considered last year in a case involving the University of Texas at Austin. In its Texas ruling, the court’s majority left intact the use of race-conscious admissions to promote diversity, but held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had failed to apply strict scrutiny to the policy at issue and ordered the circuit court to evaluate the policy again.
In the ruling on Schuette, named for the Michigan attorney general who defended the amendment, Bill Schuette, Justice Kennedy wrote: "This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it." His opinion concluded: "There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters."
Much of the debate between the justices focused on the applicability of the court’s precedents in cases involving laws that appeared to put members of minority groups at a political disadvantage. In its 8-to-7 decision striking down Michigan’s ban, the Sixth Circuit majority had cited a 1969 Supreme Court ruling, in Hunter v. Erickson, that overturned an Akron, Ohio, ballot initiative requiring voter approval of any city ordinance regulating real-estate transactions based on race. The Sixth Circuit also had cited a 1982 ruling, in Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, in which the court struck down a state ballot measure that prohibited school districts from voluntarily adopting busing policies to promote school desegregation.
The controlling opinion handed down on Tuesday held that the Michigan case differs from the cited precedents in that the measure at issue did not seek to remedy any specific acts of discrimination against minority members.
Justice Kennedy’s opinion, signed by Justices Alito and Roberts, also expressed reservations about the Seattle precedent’s assumption that members of certain minority groups have distinct political interests. The task of trying to determine where their interests lie risks "the creation of incentives for those who support or oppose certain policies to cast the debate in terms of racial advantage or disadvantage," potentially giving rise to new racial conflicts, the opinion said.
Justice Scalia argued in a concurring opinion, signed by Justice Thomas, that the court should have gone further and overruled the precedents cited by those challenging the Michigan ban.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Breyer rejected assertions by Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, and Wayne State University that their state’s ban on race-conscious admissions had reordered the political process to the detriment of minority members by stripping authority over admissions decisions from the universities’ elected boards.
Justice Breyer argued that the boards had already shut minority members and other citizens out of the process by delegating admissions decisions "to unelected university faculty members and administrators." The ban on race-conscious admissions adopted there in 2006, he wrote, "took decision-making authority away from these unelected actors and placed it in the hands of voters."
In dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote: "We are fortunate to live in a democratic society. But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups."
Protests Planned
The Supreme Court’s Schuette decision was denounced as "terrible" and "racist" by George B. Washington, a lawyer for one of the groups that had challenged the Michigan ban, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary.
Mr. Washington said in an interview that the decision "turns over to the states the right to decide what political rights blacks and Latinos have," and "will mean the resegregation of higher education" in states where such measures have passed. He predicted student protests over the decision, at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and elsewhere.
Molly Corbett Broad, president of the American Council on Education, issued a statement declaring her group’s disappointment with the Supreme Court’s ruling. She said: "All colleges and universities, in Michigan and every other state, should be able to seek to create the most challenging possible academic environment and produce students fully prepared to function in today’s society—and a diverse student body is critical to that pursuit."
The council had been joined by 48 other higher-education organizations in submitting a brief that urged the court to strike down Michigan's constitutional amendment, which, they said, "distorts the political process against racial and ethnic minority voters in Michigan, thereby violating the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution."
On the other side of the issue, the decision was praised as "a victory for the voters of Michigan and for the issue of equality" by Jennifer Gratz, who successfully challenged the University of Michigan’s race-conscious undergraduate-admissions policy in a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2003. She later helped lead the campaign for that state’s ban on preferences.
Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a group critical of affirmative action, called in a statement for new efforts to abolish race-conscious admissions policies. "Where ballot initiatives are not available," he said, "state legislatures should act; where state legislatures won’t act, then action should be taken at the local level."
Supreme Court Upholds Bans on Racial Preferences in College Admissions - Legal - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Detroit Wave
Veteran
c00ns in here riding hard for nurse rivers 
ima start calling you fakkits the c00n Squad
ima start calling you fakkits the c00n Squad
c00ns in here riding hard for nurse rivers
ima start calling you fakkits the c00n Squad
Or the Legion of c00n
He's a professional troll.
Owners need to stop bullshyttin and go ahead and vote his ass out. We know the litigation gonna take a while. Cool, get the shyt started then and remove his ass.
Detroit Wave
Veteran
@3Rivers can you remove Tune and replace it with c00n?Or the Legion of c00n
or maybe find a better pic?
