ITT: Billyadam assumes Sterling is under no contractual obligation to not harm the league because not every contract involved was made public.
I'm going to stick with my "he can't uphold his contract if he's banned" argument because even though I thoroughly believe there's an ethics clause at play I don't have access to it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
I wonder why Jim Irsay is not being forced to sell the Colts nor was the outrage as dramatic as the Sterling situation. Someone said some ugly things and another put peoples live in danger...
Jim Irsay should be forced to sell the Colts, I guess.
Even if Irsay had said exactly the same thing as Sterling, the Colts are not an NBA team. Who knows what his contract looks like. If he doesn't have a similar clause as Sterling, what justification would there be?
Even if Irsay had said exactly the same thing as Sterling, the Colts are not an NBA team. Who knows what his contract looks like. If he doesn't have a similar clause as Sterling, what justification would there be?
I'm done talking about the contract. I've been lured into a discussion that takes away from the core reason I've created this thread. Once with privilege and now this side discussion on legalities. While I'm convinced there is no legal justification to force a sale, its not the important issue. With that said, I was merely pointing out the huge discrepancies in reactions. A billionaire owner puts peoples lives in danger and the reaction is rather muted compared to someone saying something ugly.
So, in other words, you're done talking about the only part of this that matters. If Sterling didn't have a contract that allowed the NBA to force him to sell, there'd be no issue.
So, in other words, you're done talking about the only part of this that matters. If Sterling didn't have a contract that allowed the NBA to force him to sell, there'd be no issue.
So the contractual obligations in the only reason you are posting in this thread? The reaction to the racism warrants no discussion? Which is my point about Irsay. It seems someone saying something ugly provokes a stronger reaction than someone putting someones lives at risk. What good comes from ostracizing people for having an opposing opinion? You want to hide behind the contract as if that's the only thing you care about in regards to Sterling. Which obviously I believe is disingenuous considering your position as a anti-racist on this forum.
So the contractual obligations in the only reason you are posting in this thread? The reaction to the racism warrants no discussion? Which is my point about Irsay. It seems someone saying something ugly provokes a stronger reaction than someone putting someones lives at risk. What good comes from ostracizing people for having an opposing opinion? You want to hide behind the contract as if that's the only thing you care about in regards to Sterling. Which obviously I believe is disingenuous considering your position as a anti-racist on this forum.
Man, you've really latched onto the word "disingenuous" haven't you?
The contractual obligations are the only thing that allows the NBA to force Sterling to sell. Without that, it's just a bunch of people being unhappy that a racist guy said another racist thing. There's not much to discuss about that.
Even if Irsay had said exactly the same thing as Sterling, the Colts are not an NBA team. Who knows what his contract looks like. If he doesn't have a similar clause as Sterling, what justification would there be?
I'm done talking about the contract. I've been lured into a discussion that takes away from the core reason I've created this thread. Once with privilege and now this side discussion on legalities. While I'm convinced there is no legal justification to force a sale, its not the important issue. With that said, I was merely pointing out the huge discrepancies in reactions. A billionaire owner puts peoples lives in danger and the reaction is rather muted compared to someone saying something ugly.
Convinced how? You seem decidedly unable to answer anything in my post 102
Acknowledging racism exists is racist. The things you learn on Salvation. I'm just imagining people asking why there's no White Lotus and no card that says destroy target nonwhite—this joke just got a bit too honest.
Anyway, I can't help but think "Yeah, lifetime bans aren't so 'lifetime' for managers." At least looking at the history of sports.
Also, here comes someone else with another thread about how shunning terrible people for being terrible is wrong.
Should've figured. (Especially since I have an Oros deck.) But the joke was more a common meme. Also, why can't he sell seashells by the seashore? And not all men must die.
Acknowledging racism by ascribing traits to individual people or groups of people based on their race sure as hell is just like bringing attention to the existence of violence by smacking someone in the head with a bat is still violence.
We're not ascribing physical traits. We're talking about social issues. Just as the Bushes don't have some "US president gene" that makes them presidents.
Anyway, I can't help but think this is a rationalization and shooting at someone with the intent to harm them does not become "no big deal" because their a lousy shot.
No, but your hood scared me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
The Amish shun, and typically have a low crime rate within their communities. Shunning is also boycotting, and exile is a form of shunning. Are exiling and boycotting not reasonable to make people think of their behaviors?
Yet, in concentration of the man, there's some speculation that he has the onset of dementia. Which forcing some people to retire protects the business whenever health comes the issue. Companies have to protect their brand and franchise from leaders who are in their decline. The man is certainly no Warren Buffet or Jack Par.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
I'm going to stick with my "he can't uphold his contract if he's banned" argument because even though I thoroughly believe there's an ethics clause at play I don't have access to it.
Jim Irsay should be forced to sell the Colts, I guess.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I'm done talking about the contract. I've been lured into a discussion that takes away from the core reason I've created this thread. Once with privilege and now this side discussion on legalities. While I'm convinced there is no legal justification to force a sale, its not the important issue. With that said, I was merely pointing out the huge discrepancies in reactions. A billionaire owner puts peoples lives in danger and the reaction is rather muted compared to someone saying something ugly.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
So the contractual obligations in the only reason you are posting in this thread? The reaction to the racism warrants no discussion? Which is my point about Irsay. It seems someone saying something ugly provokes a stronger reaction than someone putting someones lives at risk. What good comes from ostracizing people for having an opposing opinion? You want to hide behind the contract as if that's the only thing you care about in regards to Sterling. Which obviously I believe is disingenuous considering your position as a anti-racist on this forum.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Man, you've really latched onto the word "disingenuous" haven't you?
The contractual obligations are the only thing that allows the NBA to force Sterling to sell. Without that, it's just a bunch of people being unhappy that a racist guy said another racist thing. There's not much to discuss about that.
Convinced how? You seem decidedly unable to answer anything in my post 102
Should've figured. (Especially since I have an Oros deck.) But the joke was more a common meme. Also, why can't he sell seashells by the seashore? And not all men must die.
We're not ascribing physical traits. We're talking about social issues. Just as the Bushes don't have some "US president gene" that makes them presidents.
No, but your hood scared me.
On phasing:
Yet, in concentration of the man, there's some speculation that he has the onset of dementia. Which forcing some people to retire protects the business whenever health comes the issue. Companies have to protect their brand and franchise from leaders who are in their decline. The man is certainly no Warren Buffet or Jack Par.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>