CNN/ORC poll: Public split over whether Donald Sterling should be made to sell NBA team after he was

(CNN) - A new national poll indicates Americans are split over whether NBA owners should force Donald Sterling to sell the Los Angeles Clippers after racial comments he made became public.

According to the CNN/ORC International poll released Monday, 47% of the public supports a forced sell of the team, while 50% are against it.

CNN/ORC poll: Public split over whether Donald Sterling should be made to sell NBA team after he was recorded making racist remarks.

Say what? Look, if this guy wasn't set up (many think he was) then ok, the guy is a douche. However, when did we start forcing people to sell things? Give me a break, what country do we live in anyway? What ever happened to an old fashioned boycott? Please discuss..

a reply to: Wookiep

Say what? Look, if this guy wasn't set up (many think he was) then ok, the guy is a douche. However, when did we start forcing people to sell things? Give me a break, what country do we live in anyway? What ever happened to an old fashioned boycott? Please discuss..

I'm split and I'm just a single person. It's complicated, but here are the points:

1. The girlfriend knowingly dated a racist and the media is playing her off as some wounded bird, she's not. (Also a home wrecker.)

2. The information released was not meant for public dissemination and it all comes during a spat between his wife, his girlfriend, and all the greedy claws of both of them.

3. He has the right to talk out his ass, but people should also have the right to react him talking out his ass.

This is the most important point:

He shouldn't be forced to sell the team by the league. If anything, as the players wanted to forfeit the game, the power should reside with them. They don't like the owner because of his remarks, they don't want to play for his club? Good. Support the players and give them the option. Once no one wants to play for the team he will be forced to sell.

Instead you have a powerful organization stripping him of his rights. In fact they should be respected, but also the will of the players should be respected, and let nature take its course. If they continue to play they send the message that people can say whatever they want, if they all refuse to play for the club, the owners will get a clear message that they are not just a bunch of cocks ready to kill each other for their master's benefit.

originally posted by: Wookiep
However, when did we start forcing people to sell things?

WE are not forcing him to sell. The NBA is a private organization with rules. You break the rules, you pay the price, to be decided by the organization. This is not a legal matter. The courts cannot force him to sell, but the the NBA sure can.

a reply to: Wookiep

From your source...

While 47% of all Americans think Sterling should be forced to give up his team, that number changes when the poll focuses on people who identify themselves as NBA fans. Sixty-percent of those who describe themselves as fans of professional basketball support stripping the team of its owner, compared to 41% who are not fans of the NBA.

So, 60% of fans think he should be forced to sell. I think it's totally up to the NBA. I support their decision, whatever it may be.

He didn't do a damn thing wrong. It was a private conversation that was recorded illegally, and he didn't even say anything racist, so I don't know what all the fuss is about anyway. I heard the tapes, if anything, the girl was racist, and definitely has some serious mental issues. I mean, how can you call a guy racist when he's dating a half latino half black chick?

I mean, really? And now he's going to have to sell his team, of which he bought with his own money, and is banned from the NBA for life?

Someones got a giant stick up their politically correct a**.

What's more, I'm sure you all recall the Mel Gibson tapes, where he most definitely said the n-word I think multiple times. I doubt he knew he was being recorded during those conversations, but I don't recall him ever being banned from making movies for that.

a reply to: Wookiep

However, when did we start forcing people to sell things?

There is no we to it this is an NBA matter. The man is a well known racist and the NBA finally got fed up with him. As an owner of a team he agreed to go along with their constitution so he should abide by the ruling of the commissioner.

originally posted by: 7918465230
He didn't do a damn thing wrong.

Actually, it depends on who you ask.

It was a private conversation that was recorded illegally,

Do you have a source to back this up? He asked his girlfriend to record their convos regularly. Has he stated that he was unaware he was being recorded?

and he didn't even say anything racist,

LOL! Sorry. Again, it depends on who you ask.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Ok, since when does the NBA force people to sell things? Why is it ok for any organization to perform such practices based on someones duchebaggary?

My worry is where does this stop? At what point do we stop destroying people for saying things considered politically incorrect by someone, somewhere?

It's getting insane and downright scary that you can lose your entire life because someone tapes you privately saying something that can be painted as un-PC. Big Brother is indeed watching.

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Ok, since when does the NBA force people to sell things? Why is it ok for any organization to perform such practices based on someones duchebaggary?

When people start shooting their BIG fat racist mouth off?

I believe he bought the franchise and that can be rebuked at any time if you break the agreement relating to running of said franchise. I guess, but correct me if I'm wrong, shooting your BIG fat racist mouth off, opposes everything the NBA stands for?

originally posted by: Wookiep
Ok, since when does the NBA force people to sell things?

I have no idea. But Sterling agreed to the rules and broke them. You get a job, you break the rules, you get fired. You sign up with an organization, you break the rules, you get forced to sell. It's pretty easy to understand.

Why is it ok for any organization to perform such practices based on someones duchebaggary?

That's freedom, baby!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And so, you see, according to you, he is guilty until proven innocent in a society where we cherish innocent until proven guilty ... unless someone says something you don't happen to like or believe in.

And that doesn't scare you?

It should because the next victim could be you.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

It was a private conversation that was recorded illegally,

Do you have a source to back this up? He asked his girlfriend to record their convos regularly. Has he stated that he was unaware he was being recorded?

Do YOU have a source to back that up? Why would someone have their girlfriend record their phone calls? What's more, if he knew he was being recorded, why would he then say something racist (which, like I said, he did not)? The girl was baiting him, and still she got practically nothing out of him.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And so, you see, according to you, he is guilty until proven innocent in a society where we cherish innocent until proven guilty ... unless someone says something you don't happen to like or believe in.

And that doesn't scare you?

It should because the next victim could be you.

He needs to take it to court and maybe he would be sent to prison on top of losing his franchise. Do you think he will do this?

My only issue is the taped conversation, even if he did ask her to record what they said, does that give her the right to use that recording, i am not sure where privacy stops in this case. I do understand that there has been prior incidents with sterling behing called out as a biggot, i get that the nba is a private corporation, im still not sure if its the right course to take.

Who will get banned next, a player, a coach, a ref, for using foul language that the constitution protects.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That's freedom, baby!

No, no it isn't. Sometimes you scare me..

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And so, you see, according to you, he is guilty until proven innocent in a society where we cherish innocent until proven guilty

A. This is NOT about the law. "Guilty until proven innocent" is for the COURT ROOM, not a private organization.
B. I heard his voice. He admitted it was him on the tape. There's no need to prove his guilt. He has "confeessed". But again, this is not a legal matter.
C. What I think is irrelevant, as is what each of us thinks.

It should because the next victim could be you.

If I sign a contract and I break the rules, I expect to be punished. That's not victimhood. Sterling is not a victim.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Why would he be sent to jail seriously, he commited no crime, now if those tapes where used and they where suposed to be private,, them the girlfriend could get a nice law suit

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Was there something in the contract that says something about being a douchebag and the repercussions for said duchebaggary? Do you have access to this contract?

originally posted by: 7918465230
Do YOU have a source to back that up?

Yes. Source

We're told Stiviano insists it was clear to Sterling at the beginning of the conversation he was being recorded.
What's more ... our sources say Stiviano routinely recorded her conversations with Sterling as HIS "archivist." And what's more ... she would regularly play the tapes back to him because he would often forget what he had said.

Now, how about you?

Why would someone have their girlfriend record their phone calls?

This wasn't a phone call. If you had listened to the entire recording, you'd know that she got him some juice.

What's more, if he knew he was being recorded, why would he then say something racist (which, like I said, he did not)?

LOL Make up your mind.

a reply to: Wookiep

personally speaking - NO

If he committed a hate crime then absolutely, along with charges. I don't think I can support a law / action that punishes a person for how they feel towards others, whether we agree with it or not.

Its the first step towards a thought police / police of future crimes.

Forcing a viewpoint onto someone is just as bad as the subject in question having the viewpoint he does.

The conversation was made in private and it was recorded the released. I don't care for anyone listening in on my phone calls, and those calls are private for a reason.

to clarify -
I don't support the coach.
I don't support his views.

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

On the business end if he violated some rule then yes, they should take action within their own guidelines.