You miss the point entirely. The damage that Sterling's exposed racism brings adversely affects the entire league and pollutes the brand, and his continued association with the NBA in any visible capacity, let aloneas an owner, would harm the economic and social integrity of the league.
The league has been built by minorities and has acquired an inclusive and ever-expanding global following. There's no room for mindset from an owner that is disgusted by having Blacks attend games.
By the way, if you think an owner's role is only about writing checks, you're misinformed. The owners are the driving force of league decisions on many aspects, including marketing and employment. A racist owner has no place in professional sports.
You're overreaching by comparing this with Clinton's affair with Lewinski, but I'm not surprised by the direction you would want to take this issue.
.
How am I overreaching? The
same argument you make here about Sterling's comments "adversely affects the entire league and pollutes the brand" could be made about Clinton's behavior (and lying about it afterward) adversely affecting and polluting the office of the President of the United States. The difference is, you start spinning the defense for one but not the other solely based on your politically liberal and secularist leanings.
This off base overgeneralization makes no sense, and stop saying you are not defending Sterling's comments. You are defending them and in the process condemning what you pereive to be "selective" outrage. As a left-leaning democrat, neither I nor anyone I know ever said they approved of Clinton's misconduct and his lying about it. The distinction about drawing a line between his personal life and his public life came when the idiots in the House impeached him. At that point, the question became whether or not clinton had committed a "high crime or misdomeanor" as is written in the Constitution. I and the United States Senate thought it did not.
The NBA is not part of the federal government. There is no right to free speech or opinion within the NBA because ownership of an NBA team is not something the Constitution grants. One of Sterling's statements was that he wrote the checks for the players, and thus paid for their houses, cars, etc. He omits that the players earn their living by playing the game and that he profits from it. Are they supposed to play for free? Does he think people come to see the owners and not the players? It is a plantation mentality pure and simple.
Your pitiful analysis is as bad as Rush Limbaugh's false claim that Sterling was a democrat who was being punished for not giving Obama enough money.
You say I'm generalizing and yet my comment obviously applies to you who, by the way, aren't just a "left leaning Democrat" but the single biggest liberal hack on this forum (which is filled with them). Even other libs here have admitted you have no objectivity.
In typical partisan fashion, you defend Clinton because his behavior was part of his personal life and not his public life. Yet, the
same argument could be made about Sterling's private comments. But like Kyldon above, you chose to split hairs because you favor one guy but not the other. If anything, Clinton is more to blame simply because he was a public figure in the highest office in the land and Sterling just a private citizen voicing his own (admittedly absurd) opinions.
Nobody is defending Sterling. Nail him to the wall if you want but you you libs can't be selective in your moral outrage and then pretend to be consistent.
