Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 155 of 155
Like Tree48Likes

Thread: Anybody care about the racist people in the news

  1. #101  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And it looks like Stirling family is going to fight back. Good for them. Statements illegally recorded in the privacy of one's home as the basis for takings one's property will not be supported by the courts--and shouldn't be if we value our freedoms.
    He's going to waste everybody's time and his money. This isn't an isolated incident. this was just the latest in what has been years of abuse by this man. Yes that woman illegally taped him but all that was was icing on the cake in the behavior pattern from this man. Unfortunately for sterling (fortunately for everyone else) his comments did not stay private and when added to all of his other actions it became very clear this man can't be allowed to stay. Yes they can make him sell his "personal property." Much in the same way a homeowners association can make a homeowner sell their house if they're not following the rules.

    Let's say this sterling fella was smoking crack privately in his house and was secretly video taped. the tape got out and now tarnishes the NBA's image. Sterling never smokes crack in public but the NBA's image is tarnished none the less. Could the NBA force him to sell based on private crack smoking? I think they could and it's no different. The NBA has a right to protect their interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And it looks like Stirling family is going to fight back. Good for them. Statements illegally recorded in the privacy of one's home as the basis for takings one's property will not be supported by the courts--and shouldn't be if we value our freedoms.
    He's going to waste everybody's time and his money. This isn't an isolated incident. this was just the latest in what has been years of abuse by this man. Yes that woman illegally taped him but all that was was icing on the cake in the behavior pattern from this man. Unfortunately for sterling (fortunately for everyone else) his comments did not stay private and when added to all of his other actions it became very clear this man can't be allowed to stay. Yes they can make him sell his "personal property." Much in the same way a homeowners association can make a homeowner sell their house if they're not following the rules.
    You have a very poor knowledge of law it seems. HOA do not have the power to force people to sell their property except in a few states where owners have failed to pay HOA fees and fines--and those were under extremely limited conditions directly related to proper use of the property. There's nothing in this case thus far brought forth that suggest Stirlings views had anything to do with the management of the team. Also you keep ignore that this puts civil law in conflict with US Constitutional law--Constitutional law, in this case about the first amendment completely trumps association laws and rules (Supremacy clause).

    It is also a ludicrous example to compare a Federal protected free speech in ones own home to someone who broke Federal, State laws and NBA rules by smoking crack.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And it looks like Stirling family is going to fight back. Good for them. Statements illegally recorded in the privacy of one's home as the basis for takings one's property will not be supported by the courts--and shouldn't be if we value our freedoms.
    He's going to waste everybody's time and his money. This isn't an isolated incident. this was just the latest in what has been years of abuse by this man. Yes that woman illegally taped him but all that was was icing on the cake in the behavior pattern from this man. Unfortunately for sterling (fortunately for everyone else) his comments did not stay private and when added to all of his other actions it became very clear this man can't be allowed to stay. Yes they can make him sell his "personal property." Much in the same way a homeowners association can make a homeowner sell their house if they're not following the rules.
    You have a very poor knowledge of law it seems.
    You have correctly deduced I'm not a lawyer just some guy with an opinion.
    I guess we will see. I think they can vote him out. He's too much of a liability to the league and tarnishes the NBA brand. Something I'm sure is not allowed and written into the original contract. As I said, we'll have to wait and see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    It is also a ludicrous example to compare a Federal protected free speech in ones own home to someone who broke Federal, State laws and NBA rules by smoking crack.

    I was going strictly on the privacy angle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    They don't have to vote him out actually, they can apply economic pressures. The NBA can schedule no games against his team or the players can refuse to play. This would devalue the franchise and make the owner to consider does he want a team in name only or walk away with a bag full of money.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    They don't have to vote him out actually, they can apply economic pressures. The NBA can schedule no games against his team or the players can refuse to play. This would devalue the franchise and make the owner to consider does he want a team in name only or walk away with a bag full of money.
    Nothing to stand on there either. The Clippers are one of the most profitable teams in the NBA. The NBA really has almost nothing to stand on if Stirling fights. He did not' violate their articles in their Constitution and nor has he effected profits. As the OP suggest most of their audience doesn't give two rats about what an ancient old fart said in his living room--they buy tickets to watch good ball games.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; May 13th, 2014 at 01:48 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    It is only profitable if there are games. A boycott by the players would make it unprofitable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    They are not illegally taking anyone's property. The man will get every cent he is entitled to if the forced sale of his team goes through. NBA teams are privately owned, but the man signed a contract that says a 2/3 majority of the board can vote him out as owner and force a sale. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. It is in the contract. It is not a free speech violation anymore than the Duck Dynasty thing was. The guy can fight his fines, he can sue for someone recording him in his home, whatever. But if the NBA forces him to sell, that is part of the agreement when you buy an NBA team. Just like if you go public with a company you started. You are accepting the risk that your board can vote you out as CEO. It isn't stealing, it is part of the understanding.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    They are not illegally taking anyone's property. The man will get every cent he is entitled to if the forced sale of his team goes through. NBA teams are privately owned, but the man signed a contract that says a 2/3 majority of the board can vote him out as owner and force a sale. .
    Read Article 13 on the NBA Constitution where that's contained again. The vote does not apply because none of the conditions for having the vote apply. It's a simple and straight forwards reading. But this is my last comment on this thread until actual new news comes about--it just makes me sad so many don't value the US Constitution.
    samsmoot likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    They are not illegally taking anyone's property. The man will get every cent he is entitled to if the forced sale of his team goes through. NBA teams are privately owned, but the man signed a contract that says a 2/3 majority of the board can vote him out as owner and force a sale. .
    Read Article 13 on the NBA Constitution where that's contained again. The vote does not apply because none of the conditions for having the vote apply. It's a simple and straight forwards reading. But this is my last comment on this thread until actual new news comes about--it just makes me sad so many don't value the US Constitution.
    Article 13a states that ownership may be terminated if the owner violates any other by laws in the constitution. 35a more or less restates this same thing, but in greater detail. Any violation of a rule can be grounds, therefore, for fining and terminating ownership. Check these out, 35c and d. (Article 35 specifically applies to Owners.):

    (c) Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or
    endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect
    prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the
    Association or of a Member or its Team, shall be liable to a fine not
    exceeding $1,000,000 to be imposed by the Commissioner. The
    Member whose Owner, Officer, Manager, Coach or other employee has
    been so fined shall pay the amount of the fine should such person fail to
    do so within ten (10) days of its imposition.

    (d) The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend
    for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding
    $1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person
    who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or
    detrimental to the Association.

    That is, indeed, pretty simple and straightforward. Note that 13a doesn't state termination isn't only in crimes where the owner doesn't pay the fine. Yes, every by-law includes the specific penalty and fine for that crime. This does not exclude the possibility of your ownership being revoked as an additional penalty. It is much easier to write, in 13a, that an owner violating any rule can lose ownership than it is to write that at the end of every single by-law in the handbook. Exhibit 13a:

    ARTICLE 13

    TERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OR MEMBERSHIP

    The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner
    may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of
    Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the
    following:

    (a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the
    Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the
    Association.

    It couldn't be simpler. Violation of any by-law can lose you ownership, regardless of if you paid the fine or not. Prejudice that reflects poorly on the NBA is a by-law, therefore it falls under article 13 as does every other by-law that can be applied to owners in the whole book.

    So the 2.5 million dollar fine may be 1.5 Million dollars more than it should be. But being found guilty of prejudice is clearly against the NBAs by-laws, especially if it looks badly upon the organization. He should contest the fine, sure. Any prejudical act that reflects poorly on the NBA is specifically mentioned as against the rules so falls under the blanket of 13a. 13a is a clever note as it allows termination for even minor infractions.

    It is perfectly within their rules for the Governors to vote this guy out. Either way, though, it isn't a free speech issue. It is an internal issue. Unless the government is stopping you, it is never a free speech issue. This is a purely internal affair. At worst, it is a wrongful termination issue and the guy is entitled to an amount of money equal to his losses, (which it isn't a wrongful termination issue. The by-laws allow this.) But even if I admitted the NBA rules are being broken here, it still couldn't be freedom of speech. But that is irrelevant. The only inconsistency here is the excessive fine.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    They don't have to vote him out actually, they can apply economic pressures. The NBA can schedule no games against his team or the players can refuse to play. This would devalue the franchise and make the owner to consider does he want a team in name only or walk away with a bag full of money.
    That would hurt the players more than Sterling. He's literally a billionaire he can wait that out!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    They don't have to vote him out actually, they can apply economic pressures. The NBA can schedule no games against his team or the players can refuse to play. This would devalue the franchise and make the owner to consider does he want a team in name only or walk away with a bag full of money.
    That would hurt the players more than Sterling. He's literally a billionaire he can wait that out!

    Well, yes. We are talking about a billionaire not getting TV dollars for the season, and opposing players missing one day's pay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    They don't have to vote him out actually, they can apply economic pressures. The NBA can schedule no games against his team or the players can refuse to play. This would devalue the franchise and make the owner to consider does he want a team in name only or walk away with a bag full of money.
    That would hurt the players more than Sterling. He's literally a billionaire he can wait that out!
    That strategy also assumes he is going to behave with rational self interest. He may not. He may hold out for no reason other than pride and the desire to 'win.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    But he did apologize so since he was willing to do that shouldn't he be forgiven?

    Or is being a loudmouthed idiot the only unforgivable thing in America?
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    But he did apologize so since he was willing to do that shouldn't he be forgiven?

    Or is being a loudmouthed idiot the only unforgivable thing in America?
    Being forgiven does not mean being free of consequences. The NBA is a professional organization. They have the right to distance themselves from this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And it looks like Stirling family is going to fight back. Good for them. Statements illegally recorded in the privacy of one's home as the basis for takings one's property will not be supported by the courts--and shouldn't be if we value our freedoms.
    He's going to waste everybody's time and his money. This isn't an isolated incident. this was just the latest in what has been years of abuse by this man. Yes that woman illegally taped him but all that was was icing on the cake in the behavior pattern from this man. Unfortunately for sterling (fortunately for everyone else) his comments did not stay private and when added to all of his other actions it became very clear this man can't be allowed to stay. Yes they can make him sell his "personal property." Much in the same way a homeowners association can make a homeowner sell their house if they're not following the rules.

    Let's say this sterling fella was smoking crack privately in his house and was secretly video taped. the tape got out and now tarnishes the NBA's image. Sterling never smokes crack in public but the NBA's image is tarnished none the less. Could the NBA force him to sell based on private crack smoking? I think they could and it's no different. The NBA has a right to protect their interest.
    NO HOA can make a homeowner sell their property.. NOT ONE....they can levy fines....and take you to court to comply..but they cannot make you sell your property if you are not in arrears with your loan.

    The man, major screwed up. He's a racist jerk. He got away with it for a long time and now he is back peddling....HOWEVER.....his WIFE owns half......they doubtfully can make her sell her half! It isn't his.

    I think his PLAYERS don'tw ant to play for him anymore either.

    If he was smart he'd just sell.

    He is a lousy boss anyhow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    But he did apologize so since he was willing to do that shouldn't he be forgiven?

    Or is being a loudmouthed idiot the only unforgivable thing in America?
    I doubt that applies to any country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And it looks like Stirling family is going to fight back. Good for them. Statements illegally recorded in the privacy of one's home as the basis for takings one's property will not be supported by the courts--and shouldn't be if we value our freedoms.
    He's going to waste everybody's time and his money. This isn't an isolated incident. this was just the latest in what has been years of abuse by this man. Yes that woman illegally taped him but all that was was icing on the cake in the behavior pattern from this man. Unfortunately for sterling (fortunately for everyone else) his comments did not stay private and when added to all of his other actions it became very clear this man can't be allowed to stay. Yes they can make him sell his "personal property." Much in the same way a homeowners association can make a homeowner sell their house if they're not following the rules.

    Let's say this sterling fella was smoking crack privately in his house and was secretly video taped. the tape got out and now tarnishes the NBA's image. Sterling never smokes crack in public but the NBA's image is tarnished none the less. Could the NBA force him to sell based on private crack smoking? I think they could and it's no different. The NBA has a right to protect their interest.
    NO HOA can make a homeowner sell their property.. NOT ONE....they can levy fines....and take you to court to comply..but they cannot make you sell your property if you are not in arrears with your loan.

    The man, major screwed up. He's a racist jerk. He got away with it for a long time and now he is back peddling....HOWEVER.....his WIFE owns half......they doubtfully can make her sell her half! It isn't his.

    I think his PLAYERS don'tw ant to play for him anymore either.

    If he was smart he'd just sell.

    He is a lousy boss anyhow.
    The NBA contract is not an HOA. The NBA definitely can force you to sell and racist remarks are specifically called out in the by laws.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    But he did apologize so since he was willing to do that shouldn't he be forgiven?
    I think that might have been possible had he not had a long history of that behavior.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman EvolvedAtheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    52
    I couldn't care less. People make a big deal out of some celebrity which is preposterous. 'Oh no, he is racist' - Who gives a piece of toast?
    “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by EvolvedAtheist View Post
    I couldn't care less. People make a big deal out of some celebrity which is preposterous. 'Oh no, he is racist' - Who gives a piece of toast?
    Yet you are posting on a forum about it. Irony
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    But he did apologize so since he was willing to do that shouldn't he be forgiven?

    Or is being a loudmouthed idiot the only unforgivable thing in America?
    He apologized? When did he do that?
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    NO HOA can make a homeowner sell their property.. NOT ONE....they can levy fines....and take you to court to comply..but they cannot make you sell your property if you are not in arrears with your loan.
    Yes, they can. You are misinformed. HOAs have a ton of legal authority
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    They don't have to vote him out actually, they can apply economic pressures. The NBA can schedule no games against his team or the players can refuse to play. This would devalue the franchise and make the owner to consider does he want a team in name only or walk away with a bag full of money.
    That would hurt the players more than Sterling. He's literally a billionaire he can wait that out!

    Well, yes. We are talking about a billionaire not getting TV dollars for the season, and opposing players missing one day's pay.
    It's not that simple, I suspect
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And it looks like Stirling family is going to fight back. Good for them. Statements illegally recorded in the privacy of one's home as the basis for takings one's property will not be supported by the courts--and shouldn't be if we value our freedoms.
    He's going to waste everybody's time and his money. This isn't an isolated incident. this was just the latest in what has been years of abuse by this man. Yes that woman illegally taped him but all that was was icing on the cake in the behavior pattern from this man. Unfortunately for sterling (fortunately for everyone else) his comments did not stay private and when added to all of his other actions it became very clear this man can't be allowed to stay. Yes they can make him sell his "personal property." Much in the same way a homeowners association can make a homeowner sell their house if they're not following the rules.

    Let's say this sterling fella was smoking crack privately in his house and was secretly video taped. the tape got out and now tarnishes the NBA's image. Sterling never smokes crack in public but the NBA's image is tarnished none the less. Could the NBA force him to sell based on private crack smoking? I think they could and it's no different. The NBA has a right to protect their interest.
    NO HOA can make a homeowner sell their property.. NOT ONE....they can levy fines....and take you to court to comply..but they cannot make you sell your property if you are not in arrears with your loan.

    The man, major screwed up. He's a racist jerk. He got away with it for a long time and now he is back peddling....HOWEVER.....his WIFE owns half......they doubtfully can make her sell her half! It isn't his.

    I think his PLAYERS don'tw ant to play for him anymore either.

    If he was smart he'd just sell.

    He is a lousy boss anyhow.
    The NBA contract is not an HOA.
    Nobody said it was.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Experts: NBA likely to win in Sterling legal fight | FOX Sports on MSN

    ''Sterling's own signature will come back to haunt him,'' said Michael McCann, founding director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire. ''You agree to certain basic understandings. That's what makes a sports league different from other businesses.'"The key to the NBA's authority, attorneys say, is Article 13(d) of the league's constitution. That section says that, whether Sterling intended to or not, an owner cannot ''fail or refuse to fulfill'' contractual obligations to the NBA ''in such a way to affect the Association or its members adversely.'' There's plenty of evidence Sterling's comments, revealed in a recorded conversation with a female companion, affected the league adversely.


    But I think I said this already and was dismissed for it...


    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    122
    I don't really care, and don't see the issue.

    Under the surface the USA is still heavily racist, I'd have thought that was common knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by carlinsomes View Post
    I don't really care, and don't see the issue.

    Under the surface the USA is still heavily racist, I'd have thought that was common knowledge.
    You don't see the issue with racism? just because it is still abundant doesn't mean that it's not a problem.
    You don't see the issue of a racist owning a team made up consistently of black folks?
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    WOW for a society that is supposed to be post racial they seem to be coming out of the woodwork

    Town's white police official calls Obama N-word
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    You don't see the issue of a racist owning a team made up consistently of black folks?
    Why would that be any worse than a racist owning a team made up consistently of white folks?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    You don't see the issue of a racist owning a team made up consistently of black folks?
    Why would that be any worse than a racist owning a team made up consistently of white folks?
    Poor word choice on my part.
    No it wouldn't be "any worse," per se. but the whole "plantation vibe" that comes off of it doesn't help race relations and probably hurts society worse than him weeding out black players in favor of white players.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    [QUOTE=billvon;567364]
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    You don't see the issue of a racist owning a team made up consistently of black folks?
    Why would that be any worse than a racist owning a team made up consistently of white folks?[/


    being a haole in the islands....I find racism is a two edged sword.

    THANKFULLY I have only encountered I about 3 times...

    Racism isn't ok...ever ....anywhere or anyhow!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by carlinsomes View Post
    I don't really care, and don't see the issue.

    Under the surface the USA is still heavily racist, I'd have thought that was common knowledge.
    You don't see the issue with racism? just because it is still abundant doesn't mean that it's not a problem.
    You don't see the issue of a racist owning a team made up consistently of black folks?
    Not really, no. I just think that whilst racism is wrong (even though is this indefinable) the USA is still a highly racist culture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well NBA banned Donald Sterling for life and he has to sell the team.

    Serves him right for being a racist JERK!
    Banning him is not going to make him a non racist, maybe a more careful racist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well NBA banned Donald Sterling for life and he has to sell the team.

    Serves him right for being a racist JERK!
    Banning him is not going to make him a non racist, maybe a more careful racist.
    Well, with what little time he has left... whatever. But your point is valid for others.
    Stargate likes this.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well NBA banned Donald Sterling for life and he has to sell the team.

    Serves him right for being a racist JERK!
    Banning him is not going to make him a non racist, maybe a more careful racist.
    Yes, no one can change a mind...however...he will have lost his status and his team. THAT is a big slap.
    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well NBA banned Donald Sterling for life and he has to sell the team.

    Serves him right for being a racist JERK!
    Banning him is not going to make him a non racist, maybe a more careful racist.


    Yes, no one can change a mind...however...he will have lost his status and his team. THAT is a big slap.
    He still profits.
    carlinsomes likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well NBA banned Donald Sterling for life and he has to sell the team.

    Serves him right for being a racist JERK!
    Banning him is not going to make him a non racist, maybe a more careful racist.


    Yes, no one can change a mind...however...he will have lost his status and his team. THAT is a big slap.
    He still profits.
    people led won't have to work for him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    But he did apologize so since he was willing to do that shouldn't he be forgiven?

    Or is being a loudmouthed idiot the only unforgivable thing in America?
    #

    Was it a sincere apology?

    I think he should be made an example of, but this is bad given the moral climate of the USA (and Western society). We shouldn't have people in high positions making racist comments (even his girlfriend is part black, which makes him look more stupid..lol..)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,465
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well NBA banned Donald Sterling for life and he has to sell the team.

    Serves him right for being a racist JERK!
    Banning him is not going to make him a non racist, maybe a more careful racist.
    Yes, no one can change a mind...however...he will have lost his status and his team. THAT is a big slap.
    He still profits.

    From the sale? Of course, however, his team is NOT happy to be playing for a racist.

    Everyone as lost respect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well NBA banned Donald Sterling for life and he has to sell the team.

    Serves him right for being a racist JERK!
    Banning him is not going to make him a non racist, maybe a more careful racist.


    Yes, no one can change a mind...however...he will have lost his status and his team. THAT is a big slap.
    He still profits.
    Or the players can find a new team?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by carlinsomes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Well NBA banned Donald Sterling for life and he has to sell the team.

    Serves him right for being a racist JERK!
    Banning him is not going to make him a non racist, maybe a more careful racist.


    Yes, no one can change a mind...however...he will have lost his status and his team. THAT is a big slap.
    He still profits.
    Or the players can find a new team?
    Not if they are locked in contracts.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    117
    The irony is that due to a population bottleneck that occurred about 75,000 years ago [ the Toba disaster ]
    Human beings are one of the least genetically diverse species on the planet - we are all closely related to each other.
    In view of this, racist opinions are ridiculous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    We argue about this one man yet seem to forget the racism of the Palestinians against the Jews. They have stated many times they want to wipe out the entire population of Israel. If that isn't the worse kind of racism I don't know what else is.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    You know, that is a rather curious thing if you look at it from a purely biological point of view - why would two groups who are probably closely genetically related be more hostile towards each other than towards members of a more distantly related group? I suppose its territorial-ism, but is there any other species that behaves that way?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    We argue about this one man yet seem to forget the racism of the Palestinians against the Jews. They have stated many times they want to wipe out the entire population of Israel. If that isn't the worse kind of racism I don't know what else is.
    Let us suppose some religious fanatics from a foreign land came to your country, drove you out of your home, left you to live in a squalid refugee camp. You have spent the last couple of generations watching your children suffer and die from malnourishment, disease, and seemingly random artillery barrages. The best you can possibly hope for, if you grovel and kiss the feet of your conquerors, is to be allowed to live as second class citizens within sight of the homes your ancestors lived in, occupied by those conquerors, as you perform the most menial labor available. How would you feel?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,609
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    We argue about this one man yet seem to forget the racism of the Palestinians against the Jews. They have stated many times they want to wipe out the entire population of Israel. If that isn't the worse kind of racism I don't know what else is.
    One of the unique features of Judaism is that it denotes BOTH a religious adherence AND a racial group. One of the unique features of the state of Israel is that it is a state based on religion: a self-styled "Jewish state". When you put these two together, you get an intrinsically annoying state of affairs, in which any criticism of the state and its citizens can be claimed - falsely - to be racist. The Israeli lobby in the USA devotes tirleless efforts to make Americans see it that way, with much success. And then they claim Europeans are anti-Semitic, because they have not fallen for this wheeze.

    Since Israel was imposed on the Palestinians and the Israelis have expropriated their land (and continue to do so every day via the settlement programme) it is fairly understandable, if politically counterproductive, for the Palestinians to feel as they do about the Israelis. They need not be racist - though they may well come to be after a bit. I'm sure I would if I were one.
    Last edited by exchemist; August 7th, 2014 at 06:35 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    We argue about this one man yet seem to forget the racism of the Palestinians against the Jews. They have stated many times they want to wipe out the entire population of Israel. If that isn't the worse kind of racism I don't know what else is.
    Let us suppose some religious fanatics from a foreign land came to your country, drove you out of your home, left you to live in a squalid refugee camp. You have spent the last couple of generations watching your children suffer and die from malnourishment, disease, and seemingly random artillery barrages. The best you can possibly hope for, if you grovel and kiss the feet of your conquerors, is to be allowed to live as second class citizens within sight of the homes your ancestors lived in, occupied by those conquerors, as you perform the most menial labor available. How would you feel?

    Yet they use over 100 million dollars to build tunnels into Israel to kill the Jews in a terrorist manner. More money is also spent on weapons as well. I'd be using money to help my community rather than kill others.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    One of the unique features of Judaism is that it denotes BOTH a religious adherence AND a racial group.
    But looking at Palestine they also do the same thing being Muslim and Hamas within causing a racial group to evolve.

    Since Israel was imposed on the Palestinians and the Israelis have expropriated their land (and continue to do so every day via the settlement programme) it is fairly understandable, if politically counterproductive, for the Palestinians to feel as they do about the Israelis.
    As I recall it that land was won after a war with the Palestinians who started a war against Israel but lost it. Now after losing that land they want it back. Would the Palestinians given the land back to the Israelis if they had won the war, i'd think not.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,609
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    One of the unique features of Judaism is that it denotes BOTH a religious adherence AND a racial group.
    But looking at Palestine they also do the same thing being Muslim and Hamas within causing a racial group to evolve.

    Since Israel was imposed on the Palestinians and the Israelis have expropriated their land (and continue to do so every day via the settlement programme) it is fairly understandable, if politically counterproductive, for the Palestinians to feel as they do about the Israelis.
    As I recall it that land was won after a war with the Palestinians who started a war against Israel but lost it. Now after losing that land they want it back. Would the Palestinians given the land back to the Israelis if they had won the war, i'd think not.
    No, Palestine is not a proper state at all, being more or less like an apartheid-era bantustan, still less one defined by ethnicity or religion. Palestinians are mostly ethnically Arab and mostly muslim, as are numerous others states in the area. They do not occupy a state defined by religion or ethnicity. Nobody would argue being anti-Palestinian was a racist position to hold.

    As for the war, yes but this was precipitated by the imposition of the state of Israel. You mention it as a war against Israel but fail to ask yourself how Israel came to be. That is where the problem lies.

    Israel only came into existence in 1948 as a result of immigration of Jews to Palestine (a lot of it illegal), from the 1920s and during the postwar British mandate, and the growth of Jewish terrorism, which eventually led to a UN partition plan, and the carving out of Israel from what had hitherto been Palestinian territory. The immigration started in response to the Balfour Declaration, which in retrospect can perhaps be seen as one of many cases of British high-minded high-handedness, as it essentially held out the promise of giving away somebody else's property. Perhaps this is all glossed over in the USA. But it is an uncomfortable fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    One of the unique features of Judaism is that it denotes BOTH a religious adherence AND a racial group.
    But looking at Palestine they also do the same thing being Muslim and Hamas within causing a racial group to evolve.

    Since Israel was imposed on the Palestinians and the Israelis have expropriated their land (and continue to do so every day via the settlement programme) it is fairly understandable, if politically counterproductive, for the Palestinians to feel as they do about the Israelis.
    As I recall it that land was won after a war with the Palestinians who started a war against Israel but lost it. Now after losing that land they want it back. Would the Palestinians given the land back to the Israelis if they had won the war, i'd think not.
    No, Palestine is not a proper state at all, being more or less like an apartheid-era bantustan, still less one defined by ethnicity or religion. Palestinians are mostly ethnically Arab and mostly muslim, as are numerous others states in the area. They do not occupy a state defined by religion or ethnicity. Nobody would argue being anti-Palestinian was a racist position to hold.

    As for the war, yes but this was precipitated by the imposition of the state of Israel. You mention it as a war against Israel but fail to ask yourself how Israel came to be. That is where the problem lies.

    Israel only came into existence in 1948 as a result of immigration of Jews to Palestine (a lot of it illegal), from the 1920s and during the postwar British mandate, and the growth of Jewish terrorism, which eventually led to a UN partition plan, and the carving out of Israel from what had hitherto been Palestinian territory. The immigration started in response to the Balfour Declaration, which in retrospect can perhaps be seen as one of many cases of British high-minded high-handedness, as it essentially held out the promise of giving away somebody else's property. Perhaps this is all glossed over in the USA. But it is an uncomfortable fact.
    Regardless of how it came about, or if it should have been established, Israel exists now and the people born there have a much a right to their homes as anyone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,609
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    One of the unique features of Judaism is that it denotes BOTH a religious adherence AND a racial group.
    But looking at Palestine they also do the same thing being Muslim and Hamas within causing a racial group to evolve.

    Since Israel was imposed on the Palestinians and the Israelis have expropriated their land (and continue to do so every day via the settlement programme) it is fairly understandable, if politically counterproductive, for the Palestinians to feel as they do about the Israelis.
    As I recall it that land was won after a war with the Palestinians who started a war against Israel but lost it. Now after losing that land they want it back. Would the Palestinians given the land back to the Israelis if they had won the war, i'd think not.
    No, Palestine is not a proper state at all, being more or less like an apartheid-era bantustan, still less one defined by ethnicity or religion. Palestinians are mostly ethnically Arab and mostly muslim, as are numerous others states in the area. They do not occupy a state defined by religion or ethnicity. Nobody would argue being anti-Palestinian was a racist position to hold.

    As for the war, yes but this was precipitated by the imposition of the state of Israel. You mention it as a war against Israel but fail to ask yourself how Israel came to be. That is where the problem lies.

    Israel only came into existence in 1948 as a result of immigration of Jews to Palestine (a lot of it illegal), from the 1920s and during the postwar British mandate, and the growth of Jewish terrorism, which eventually led to a UN partition plan, and the carving out of Israel from what had hitherto been Palestinian territory. The immigration started in response to the Balfour Declaration, which in retrospect can perhaps be seen as one of many cases of British high-minded high-handedness, as it essentially held out the promise of giving away somebody else's property. Perhaps this is all glossed over in the USA. But it is an uncomfortable fact.
    Regardless of how it came about, or if it should have been established, Israel exists now and the people born there have a much a right to their homes as anyone.
    That's highly debatable. If you are the child of a conquering invader who has appropriated someone's land, do you in fact have a right to remain there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    One of the unique features of Judaism is that it denotes BOTH a religious adherence AND a racial group.
    But looking at Palestine they also do the same thing being Muslim and Hamas within causing a racial group to evolve.

    Since Israel was imposed on the Palestinians and the Israelis have expropriated their land (and continue to do so every day via the settlement programme) it is fairly understandable, if politically counterproductive, for the Palestinians to feel as they do about the Israelis.
    As I recall it that land was won after a war with the Palestinians who started a war against Israel but lost it. Now after losing that land they want it back. Would the Palestinians given the land back to the Israelis if they had won the war, i'd think not.
    No, Palestine is not a proper state at all, being more or less like an apartheid-era bantustan, still less one defined by ethnicity or religion. Palestinians are mostly ethnically Arab and mostly muslim, as are numerous others states in the area. They do not occupy a state defined by religion or ethnicity. Nobody would argue being anti-Palestinian was a racist position to hold.

    As for the war, yes but this was precipitated by the imposition of the state of Israel. You mention it as a war against Israel but fail to ask yourself how Israel came to be. That is where the problem lies.

    Israel only came into existence in 1948 as a result of immigration of Jews to Palestine (a lot of it illegal), from the 1920s and during the postwar British mandate, and the growth of Jewish terrorism, which eventually led to a UN partition plan, and the carving out of Israel from what had hitherto been Palestinian territory. The immigration started in response to the Balfour Declaration, which in retrospect can perhaps be seen as one of many cases of British high-minded high-handedness, as it essentially held out the promise of giving away somebody else's property. Perhaps this is all glossed over in the USA. But it is an uncomfortable fact.
    Regardless of how it came about, or if it should have been established, Israel exists now and the people born there have a much a right to their homes as anyone.
    That's highly debatable. If you are the child of a conquering invader who has appropriated someone's land, do you in fact have a right to remain there?
    Yes, though if the rightful owner of a piece of land can be tracked down the land should be returned. But I still have the right to live in the country. Unless you are arguing heritage gives someone a right to live in a country, and someone's skin color or 'race' owns something. The implications of that argument are both racist and absurd. Heritage/ethnicity is an arbitrary concept. How many generation back, exactly, until the ownership of a land leaves one ethnicity and transfer to another? I want an exact number. Then give me the reason why, after we've gone far back enough, those people have a legitimate claim over that land. More than likely, those people were not the first inhabitants of that land. More than likely, the 'original' inhabitants were conquerors, too. So let's kick them out. Let's track down until we find the direct descendants of the first humans to step foot in that land. But even that is arbitrary.

    It is evil and nonsensical to tell someone they no longer have a country just because their parents were conquerors. What gives you the right to live in a country if being born there doesn't give you that right?

    I've never met a single person capable of answering these questions at all, probably because the whole concept of race is invented, but you're welcome to try.

    The entire premise that an ethnicity owns something doesn't make sense. If a given swath of land or artifact is old enough that the actual owners can't be found, sure, giving it to whoever identifies with those people makes sense. Saying the children of Israelis who were born in Jerusalem don't have a right to be there but people who've never stepped close to the city, but their grandparents have, doesn't make any sense. I can imagine a good case made that both children have equal claim to the land. But how could you justify kicking the former out and keeping the latter there without entirely racist reasons?

    Israel exists and that fact can't be ignored. People have homes and swaths of land they own with as much legitimacy as anywhere on the planet, because all 'ethnicities' have homelands they killed people to get. That doesn't make it right to conquer, but we aren't talking about punishing conquerors and returning property to the people kicked out. We are talking about the grandchildren and great grandchildren of people who migrated to Israel after a complicated political move.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,609
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    One of the unique features of Judaism is that it denotes BOTH a religious adherence AND a racial group.
    But looking at Palestine they also do the same thing being Muslim and Hamas within causing a racial group to evolve.

    Since Israel was imposed on the Palestinians and the Israelis have expropriated their land (and continue to do so every day via the settlement programme) it is fairly understandable, if politically counterproductive, for the Palestinians to feel as they do about the Israelis.
    As I recall it that land was won after a war with the Palestinians who started a war against Israel but lost it. Now after losing that land they want it back. Would the Palestinians given the land back to the Israelis if they had won the war, i'd think not.
    No, Palestine is not a proper state at all, being more or less like an apartheid-era bantustan, still less one defined by ethnicity or religion. Palestinians are mostly ethnically Arab and mostly muslim, as are numerous others states in the area. They do not occupy a state defined by religion or ethnicity. Nobody would argue being anti-Palestinian was a racist position to hold.

    As for the war, yes but this was precipitated by the imposition of the state of Israel. You mention it as a war against Israel but fail to ask yourself how Israel came to be. That is where the problem lies.

    Israel only came into existence in 1948 as a result of immigration of Jews to Palestine (a lot of it illegal), from the 1920s and during the postwar British mandate, and the growth of Jewish terrorism, which eventually led to a UN partition plan, and the carving out of Israel from what had hitherto been Palestinian territory. The immigration started in response to the Balfour Declaration, which in retrospect can perhaps be seen as one of many cases of British high-minded high-handedness, as it essentially held out the promise of giving away somebody else's property. Perhaps this is all glossed over in the USA. But it is an uncomfortable fact.
    Regardless of how it came about, or if it should have been established, Israel exists now and the people born there have a much a right to their homes as anyone.
    That's highly debatable. If you are the child of a conquering invader who has appropriated someone's land, do you in fact have a right to remain there?
    Yes, though if the rightful owner of a piece of land can be tracked down the land should be returned. But I still have the right to live in the country. Unless you are arguing heritage gives someone a right to live in a country, and someone's skin color or 'race' owns something. The implications of that argument are both racist and absurd. Heritage/ethnicity is an arbitrary concept. How many generation back, exactly, until the ownership of a land leaves one ethnicity and transfer to another? I want an exact number. Then give me the reason why, after we've gone far back enough, those people have a legitimate claim over that land. More than likely, those people were not the first inhabitants of that land. More than likely, the 'original' inhabitants were conquerors, too. So let's kick them out. Let's track down until we find the direct descendants of the first humans to step foot in that land. But even that is arbitrary.

    It is evil and nonsensical to tell someone they no longer have a country just because their parents were conquerors. What gives you the right to live in a country if being born there doesn't give you that right?

    I've never met a single person capable of answering these questions at all, probably because the whole concept of race is invented, but you're welcome to try.

    The entire premise that an ethnicity owns something doesn't make sense. If a given swath of land or artifact is old enough that the actual owners can't be found, sure, giving it to whoever identifies with those people makes sense. Saying the children of Israelis who were born in Jerusalem don't have a right to be there but people who've never stepped close to the city, but their grandparents have, doesn't make any sense. I can imagine a good case made that both children have equal claim to the land. But how could you justify kicking the former out and keeping the latter there without entirely racist reasons?

    Israel exists and that fact can't be ignored. People have homes and swaths of land they own with as much legitimacy as anywhere on the planet, because all 'ethnicities' have homelands they killed people to get. That doesn't make it right to conquer, but we aren't talking about punishing conquerors and returning property to the people kicked out. We are talking about the grandchildren and great grandchildren of people who migrated to Israel after a complicated political move.
    I'm inclined to think a state has the right to exist, provided it does not systematically dispossess people of their property.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    I'm inclined to think a state has the right to exist, provided it does not systematically dispossess people of their property.
    The condition for asserting statehood is somewhat debatable in international law and philosophy; one that also requires signatories in agreement, otherwise whilst ignoring all other factors and focusing primarily on the question, it all falls back onto an assertion of Might Makes Right and a contestation of Wills in the political arena if dealing with more than on country. Furthermore, the legitimacy of any and probably all current sovereign nations comes from a long history of disposing people of their property (land included). From the ancient Chinese empire and warring states, the former Roman empire, the former British empire and her colonies; America itself was established on the land and at the cost of blood of many tribal native American Indians.

    Our mentality regarding conquest through war may have changed, but the basis for establishing ownership hasn't really changed much from my perspective. To regress backwards into the history of any recognized sovereign state is the ability to defend her borders (or rely on the aid of others to do so for her) to persevere her assertion of natural rights.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,609
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    I'm inclined to think a state has the right to exist, provided it does not systematically dispossess people of their property.
    The condition for asserting statehood is somewhat debatable in international law and philosophy; one that also requires signatories in agreement, otherwise whilst ignoring all other factors and focusing primarily on the question, it all falls back onto an assertion of Might Makes Right and a contestation of Wills in the political arena if dealing with more than on country. Furthermore, the legitimacy of any and probably all current sovereign nations comes from a long history of disposing people of their property (land included). From the ancient Chinese empire and warring states, the former Roman empire, the former British empire and her colonies; America itself was established on the land and at the cost of blood of many tribal native American Indians.

    Our mentality regarding conquest through war may have changed, but the basis for establishing ownership hasn't really changed much from my perspective. To regress backwards into the history of any recognized sovereign state is the ability to defend her borders (or rely on the aid of others to do so for her) to persevere her assertion of natural rights.
    Fair points. I suppose what I have in mind is current attempts at creating new states, for example in Eastern Ukraine, via immigration and then assertion of cultural difference and the so called Islamic Caliphate in Iraq/Syria.

    I don't seriously argue Israel should now be dismembered, but I do think we do well to understand the depth of Palestinian resentment before contemptuously dismissing them as mere anti-Semitic bigots, as some on this thread (not you) seem minded to do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Rapid evolution proves that evolutionary psychology is racist.
    By Martin J Sallberg in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 12:21 AM
  2. There's good news and there's bad news.
    By Cyberia in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 17th, 2009, 04:59 PM
  3. No News is Good News.
    By Anna_Marie in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 30th, 2007, 11:06 AM
  4. Is Judaism a racist religion?
    By Rebiu in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: September 13th, 2006, 04:09 PM
  5. Racist biggots.
    By Cottontop3000 in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: March 1st, 2006, 03:18 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •