Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Let's play 'who said it' with Donald Sterling and Donald Trump to see who has eaten more crow when it comes to business, race, and sex   (motherjones.com) divider line 91
    More: Dumbass, Donald Trump  
•       •       •

4801 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Apr 2014 at 9:55 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-29 11:23:02 AM  

Grungehamster: Facetious_Speciest: Grungehamster

When she's hanging out with black men, particularly posing for flirty photos, the image of her delicacy fades and suddenly her stock as a trophy girlfriend falls. In other words, it is embarrassing for him to be seen as having a girlfriend who might be interested in black men sexually.

Huh. Ok. Weird. He's fine with her farking a guy as long as other people don't perceive him as being cuckolded. I guess that makes a certain amount of sense for such a self-obsessed person.

/the more I know

But the reason it's being treated as particularly racist is he makes clear that if she's out and about posing sexy with white guys that won't be distressing because she won't be seen as a harlot because being overly friendly with white men isn't a red flag of sexual promiscuity (you could just be bubbly and fun-loving) for society but being overly friendly with black men is. The whole time he argues that he doesn't personally hold racist opinions, but that he needs to act in a way that is racially discriminatory to keep up appearances and meet the expectations of our culture. Here's a fascinating article on it.


I hadn't read that part of the transcript before. That was the most effed-up conversation I've ever seen.
 
2014-04-29 11:23:20 AM  

dantheman195: tnpir: How about we tie both of them up and throw them over a cliff?

Problem solved.

No tolerance, like liberal tolerance.....


Not liking racists isn't intolerant it means you don't like racists. Also that "hurr durrr you're a hypocrite cause you're intolerant of racists" is farking stupid.
 
2014-04-29 11:24:50 AM  
Grungehamster

Here's a fascinating article on it.

Creepiest stuff I've read all morning. Wow.

The guy isn't all there.
 
2014-04-29 11:26:09 AM  

chapman: Grungehamster: wearetheworld: Grungehamster: wearetheworld: How about that NAACP?  What a fantastic group advancing black people's causes by honoring guys like Sterling, not once but twice.  Show me the money NAACP.

They're returning it all.

Sure they are.


How could I have been so blind?! Clearly they will lie about it and hold onto the money despite the public promise because that has no chance of blowing up in their faces when the records of the money being returned isn't there in their filings. Or do you think the NAACP cooks the books too?

Why should they give it back?  Same goes for UCLA and the recent 1 million dollar donation to their kidney clinic.  Why deprive people who would benefit from the good the money does?  I'd rather it be in their hands than back in Sterling's.


The question of hypocrisy and influence peddling. Rightly or wrongly, you are judged by the company you keep. Being willing to accept the money of someone who espouses beliefs running counter to your organization brings questions of how dedicated you are to the cause, particularly if push comes to shove and you have to deal with a delicate situation that could suggest a conflict of interest. For example, say a Clipper's player claims to have been discriminated against, but your organization does not feel the need to champion the cause either because they didn't approach you or based on your understanding of the situation their claim is without merit. It doesn't matter that you have a valid reason for staying out of it, you are stuck with a perception of being an interest group selling indulgences instead of fighting for the cause.
 
2014-04-29 11:37:29 AM  

chapman: It's illegal in California, which is a two party consent state under Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989). (Source:http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law )


Doesn't looks like it. I went straight to the statute:

632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) The term "person" includes an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or recording the communication.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=0000 1- 01000&file=630-638
 
2014-04-29 11:38:07 AM  
I'd rather not associate either of those pasty, bloated fleshbags with anything having to do with sex.

F*ck both Donalds straight to hell.
 
2014-04-29 11:40:48 AM  

Grungehamster: The question of hypocrisy and influence peddling. Rightly or wrongly, you are judged by the company you keep. Being willing to accept the money of someone who espouses beliefs running counter to your organization brings questions of how dedicated you are to the cause


Returning money to someone or some group is functionally equivalent to donating money to them.
 
2014-04-29 11:43:38 AM  

kronicfeld: JackieRabbit: exparrot: The key difference is Sterling was recorded in a private situation

Yes, and whoever made the recording violated the Wiretap Act and may be subject to both criminal prosecution and civil liability. Whoever did this is more stupid than Sterling.

1. The act applies not at all to the recording in-person communications.
2. The act does not apply to recording a conversation to which you are a party.
3. The act does not apply if the other party has no reasonable expectation of privacy, including knowledge that the recording is occurring, which based on some accounts was the case.


Recording laws vary from state to state.
In Texas, it's legal as long as one (1) party is aware it's being recorded.  Usually the person recording is aware he/she is doing it.
 
2014-04-29 11:43:46 AM  

chapman: Grungehamster: wearetheworld: Grungehamster: wearetheworld: How about that NAACP?  What a fantastic group advancing black people's causes by honoring guys like Sterling, not once but twice.  Show me the money NAACP.

They're returning it all.

Sure they are.


How could I have been so blind?! Clearly they will lie about it and hold onto the money despite the public promise because that has no chance of blowing up in their faces when the records of the money being returned isn't there in their filings. Or do you think the NAACP cooks the books too?

Why should they give it back?  Same goes for UCLA and the recent 1 million dollar donation to their kidney clinic.  Why deprive people who would benefit from the good the money does?  I'd rather it be in their hands than back in Sterling's.


I agree.  They should actually publicize it as a "Sterling is a Douchebag College Fund".  Give the kids t-shirts with that and have them do commercials.
 
2014-04-29 11:46:09 AM  

someonelse: SlothB77: Sterling illustrates perfectly what Cliven Bundy was trying to explain.

Cliven Bundy couldn't explain 1+1=2 without it becoming a garbled diatribe in which he is somehow a victim of something. He's a dim bulb who has failed upward on the backs of government largesse.


But Sean Hannity says he reminds him of our "Founding Fathers??"

Been a few days, don't know what Hannity is saying now.
 
2014-04-29 11:46:22 AM  

BMFPitt: Grungehamster: The question of hypocrisy and influence peddling. Rightly or wrongly, you are judged by the company you keep. Being willing to accept the money of someone who espouses beliefs running counter to your organization brings questions of how dedicated you are to the cause

Returning money to someone or some group is functionally equivalent to donating money to them.


I see nothing wrong with taking money from a racist and doing some good with it.
 
2014-04-29 11:53:35 AM  
A disproportionate number of multi-millionaires and billionaires found to be A-holes. Film at 11.
 
2014-04-29 11:55:53 AM  

dantheman195: tnpir: How about we tie both of them up and throw them over a cliff?

Problem solved.

No tolerance, like liberal tolerance.....


Hey, if you idiot right-wingers can have your second amendment solutions, I can have my urge to biatch-slap the hell out of people who deserve it.
 
2014-04-29 11:57:12 AM  

kronicfeld: Doesn't looks like it. I went straight to the statute:

632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) The term "person" includes an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or recording the communication.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=0000 1- 01000&file=630-638


Look at the case law cited.  It isn't even a close question:  "California prohibits the recording of a telephone call without consent from all parties, but only if the call includes a "confidential communication."   Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575  (Cal. 2002).
 
2014-04-29 12:09:55 PM  

chapman: Look at the case law cited.  It isn't even a close question:  "California prohibits the recording of a telephone call without consent from all parties, but only if the call includes a "confidential communication."   Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575  (Cal. 2002).


The question then becomes whether Sterling was aware of the recording. According to the girlfriend he asked her to record their conversations; seems unlikely to me. Of course, she and her lawyer also claim not to be the source of the tape too.
 
2014-04-29 12:11:12 PM  
Great! Let's play who said what with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Magic Johnson, Elijah Cumming, Harry Reid ..
 
2014-04-29 12:11:51 PM  

Diogenes: SlothB77: Yes, I know he is registered as a republican in California.  But i'm sorry, republicans don't donate money to Gray Davis.  He was about to win an NAACP Lifetime Achievement Award.  His second one.  How many capital R republicans get two of those?  He donated to Patrick Leahy.  He donated to Bill Bradley.  He's a Hollywood liberal elitist.

I'll accept he's not a dyed in the wool Republican.  But he's not a liberal Democrat either.

He's a wealthy operator who knows which palms to grease.  It's not much more complicated than that.


More like a Dixiecrat
 
2014-04-29 12:13:35 PM  

Grungehamster: The question then becomes whether Sterling was aware of the recording. According to the girlfriend he asked her to record their conversations; seems unlikely to me. Of course, she and her lawyer also claim not to be the source of the tape too.


Well of course it wouldn't be illegal if all parties were aware.  I find it doubtful that anybody would be that stupid, though Sterling is certainly challenging my prior belief in this.
 
2014-04-29 12:18:13 PM  

Diogenes: BMFPitt: Grungehamster: The question of hypocrisy and influence peddling. Rightly or wrongly, you are judged by the company you keep. Being willing to accept the money of someone who espouses beliefs running counter to your organization brings questions of how dedicated you are to the cause

Returning money to someone or some group is functionally equivalent to donating money to them.

I see nothing wrong with taking money from a racist and doing some good with it.


Moby used to take proceeds from car companies that used his music in advertisements and donate it to environmental groups.
 
2014-04-29 12:19:07 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Great! Let's play who said what with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Magic Johnson, Elijah Cumming, Harry Reid ..


Sounds kinda boring. But if it helps you to white knight for a couple of bloated dickwads, go ahead on.
 
2014-04-29 12:23:09 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Great! Let's play who said what with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Magic Johnson, Elijah Cumming, Harry Reid ..


I'm familiar with the controversial/racist statements of the other three, but could you point out what these two did that make them equally able to be painted with a broad brush? Magic Johnson I know of nothing other than him saying that he found Sterling's statements racist and that they have no place in the modern era and Cummings suggested that some of the breaches of the etiquette usually afforded a sitting president that have not been provided to Obama could have been influenced by race.

Yep; hatemongers the lot of them.
 
2014-04-29 12:27:18 PM  

Grungehamster: wearetheworld: How about that NAACP?  What a fantastic group advancing black people's causes by honoring guys like Sterling, not once but twice.  Show me the money NAACP.

They're returning it all.


If you're looking for honesty and integrity in the world do not look at politics, business, religion  or sports.
 
2014-04-29 12:28:45 PM  
Even before I heard about these two Donalds, the name Donald has always bothered me for some reason.  Everytime I hear the name I get this cringy angry feeling in my stomach.
 
2014-04-29 12:30:01 PM  

chapman: Look at the case law cited. It isn't even a close question: "California prohibits the recording of a telephone call without consent from all parties, but only if the call includes a "confidential communication." Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575 (Cal. 2002).


We know the recording was made in person.
 
2014-04-29 12:32:19 PM  

kronicfeld: chapman: Look at the case law cited. It isn't even a close question: "California prohibits the recording of a telephone call without consent from all parties, but only if the call includes a "confidential communication." Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575 (Cal. 2002).


We know the recording was made in person.


Check the cases I cited, that isn't an issue.  In California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989) a man was convicted for recording sex acts with unsuspecting women.... in person.
 
2014-04-29 12:32:50 PM  
Theory Of Null

Even before I heard about these two Donalds, the name Donald has always bothered me for some reason. Everytime I hear the name I get this cringy angry feeling in my stomach.

Are you a Campbell?
 
2014-04-29 12:40:15 PM  

Theory Of Null: Even before I heard about these two Donalds, the name Donald has always bothered me for some reason.  Everytime I hear the name I get this cringy angry feeling in my stomach.


Case in point: img.fark.net

Rebuttal: img.fark.net
 
2014-04-29 12:40:16 PM  

chapman: kronicfeld: chapman: Look at the case law cited. It isn't even a close question: "California prohibits the recording of a telephone call without consent from all parties, but only if the call includes a "confidential communication." Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575 (Cal. 2002).


We know the recording was made in person.

Check the cases I cited, that isn't an issue.  In California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989) a man was convicted for recording sex acts with unsuspecting women.... in person.


Have you shepardized that 25 year old case to determine whether the specific exception for recording one's own in-person conversation post-dates the case? The fact that the case makes no mention whatsoever to the exception in 632(b) strongly suggests that the statute has been revised since 1989.
 
2014-04-29 12:48:02 PM  

Grungehamster: Facetious_Speciest: I haven't kept up with all of this, but the weirdest thing to me was that he got all pissy his girlfriend was hanging out with black people...when she's obviously of some black ancestry herself. Not sure how he thought that could play well...

He has no personal problem with black people. He claimed ignorance of her mixed race background and the fact that she was didn't bother him. Hell, he even told her he would be perfectly OK with her sleeping with these men (though if I were him I'd probably have suggested protection in Magic Johnson's case). No, his problem is that one of his friends (Dennis) saw the picture, and how her being in public with these black athletes reflects poorly on him. See, she's his girlfriend, and the image he wants people to have of her is that she is "a delicate white or a delicate Latina girl." When she's hanging out with black men, particularly posing for flirty photos, the image of her delicacy fades and suddenly her stock as a trophy girlfriend falls. In other words, it is embarrassing for him to be seen as having a girlfriend who might be interested in black men sexually.

In my mind the situation is more sexist than racist, but just barely (looking down on women who associate publicly with black people as inferior to women who do not due to a perceived stereotypes of black men and the women who associate with them.)


That's a pretty ridiculous assessment of the situation considering Sterling's history of overtly racist comments and actions. But, i guess coming from a time when men like this could run around saying this shiat with impunity, we can look at this as a victory. I mean, we're in a point in our history when racist monsters are afraid of being labelled correctly. From a time when black men had to hide their distain for whites who spat on them and called them every name in the book...to a time when it's THE RACIST who has to hide his true feelings. Even a billionare. That's progress.
 
2014-04-29 12:52:11 PM  

chapman: Grungehamster: wearetheworld: Grungehamster: wearetheworld: How about that NAACP?  What a fantastic group advancing black people's causes by honoring guys like Sterling, not once but twice.  Show me the money NAACP.

They're returning it all.

Sure they are.


How could I have been so blind?! Clearly they will lie about it and hold onto the money despite the public promise because that has no chance of blowing up in their faces when the records of the money being returned isn't there in their filings. Or do you think the NAACP cooks the books too?

Why should they give it back?  Same goes for UCLA and the recent 1 million dollar donation to their kidney clinic.  Why deprive people who would benefit from the good the money does?  I'd rather it be in their hands than back in Sterling's.



I say use it to start a fund to help the tenants that he's been shiatting on for years. Moving assistance.
 
2014-04-29 01:01:34 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: <strong>Theory Of Null</strong>

<em>Even before I heard about these two Donalds, the name Donald has always bothered me for some reason. Everytime I hear the name I get this cringy angry feeling in my stomach.</em>

Are you a Campbell?


I don't think I am. Most of my family is of german, austrian and polish origin. My grandma looked and sounded like a minature version of arnold schwarzenegger. If he had a perm and was little bit shorter he could be my grandma.
 
2014-04-29 01:45:44 PM  
democrats like Donald Sterling are usually much better at hiding their racism. He must be getting old.
How many democrats that Sterling gave money to are now going give that tainted money to charities? Are the players so offended that they'll refuse to play for this democrat racist?
 
2014-04-29 01:52:47 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-29 01:56:58 PM  
 
2014-04-29 02:09:19 PM  

Diogenes: I'll accept he's not a dyed in the wool Republican. But he's not a liberal Democrat either.

He's a wealthy operator who knows which palms to grease. It's not much more complicated than that.


i'll accept that.
 
2014-04-29 02:20:17 PM  

Launch Code: democrats like Donald Sterling are usually much better at hiding their racism. He must be getting old.
How many democrats that Sterling gave money to are now going give that tainted money to charities? Are the players so offended that they'll refuse to play for this democrat racist?


Lol he's a registered Republican but no matter what party being racist makes you a piece of shiat.
 
2014-04-29 02:33:51 PM  

A Terrible Human: Launch Code: democrats like Donald Sterling are usually much better at hiding their racism. He must be getting old.
How many democrats that Sterling gave money to are now going give that tainted money to charities? Are the players so offended that they'll refuse to play for this democrat racist?

Lol he's a registered Republican but no matter what party being racist makes you a piece of shiat.


No he's the democratest democrat who ever democratted and furthermore
 
2014-04-29 02:44:20 PM  

someonelse: A Terrible Human: Launch Code: democrats like Donald Sterling are usually much better at hiding their racism. He must be getting old.
How many democrats that Sterling gave money to are now going give that tainted money to charities? Are the players so offended that they'll refuse to play for this democrat racist?

Lol he's a registered Republican but no matter what party being racist makes you a piece of shiat.

No he's the democratest democrat who ever democratted and furthermore


Lol but really democrat or republican racists can go fark themselves.
 
2014-04-29 03:15:35 PM  
MSM - Keep wagging that dog.  Public, keep freaked out about racism (white-on-black only) and climate "change".

Glad to see there's finally a good sidetrack from a crumbling economy, multiple fronts of "war" and of course the possibility of getting pulled back into military conflict with Russia.

Enjoy paying more for less.
 
2014-04-29 03:30:32 PM  

Wook: MSM - Keep wagging that dog.  Public, keep freaked out about racism (white-on-black only) and climate "change".

Glad to see there's finally a good sidetrack from a crumbling economy, multiple fronts of "war" and of course the possibility of getting pulled back into military conflict with Russia.

Enjoy paying more for less.


Lets count the derp

1...
2...
potato!
 
2014-04-29 03:56:12 PM  

Egoy3k: Wook: MSM - Keep wagging that dog.  Public, keep freaked out about racism (white-on-black only) and climate "change".

Glad to see there's finally a good sidetrack from a crumbling economy, multiple fronts of "war" and of course the possibility of getting pulled back into military conflict with Russia.

Enjoy paying more for less.

Lets count the derp

1...
2...
potato!


When did this topic become political? Seriously, who cares what party he is from.  He should be judged by the content of his character, just like everyone else in this world. It is obvious his character has some serious flaws. Some serious, and racist flaws. That is all. Trolls will be trolls I guess. The butt hurt over the Bundy thing and him being labeled as republican still must be getting to them. Do they feel the need to find a new, even worse, democrat to point fingers at to deflect. To each his own I suppose. Just seems childish.
 
Displayed 41 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report