Move over Brendan Eich, suddenly it’s “not” ok to be a bigot businessman in America

Oh the irony.

It was only a few weeks ago that America was lecturing the gay community about its intolerance for intolerance, for objecting to a bigot (in fact, an anti-gay activist, Brendan Eich) running a major American corporation (in this case, the Mozilla Foundation).

Republicans, including gay conservatives, were particularly upset that anyone would judge a man’s job performance, especially the man running a company, by his personal animus towards minorities, many of whom would be his own employees.  So long as he didn’t discriminate against his own employees, he was free to be a bigot, they told us.

Now, they’re all eating crow.

LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling, courtesy of the NBA.

LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling, courtesy of the NBA.

Today, even conservatives are saying (on CNN) that the NBA simply must investigate whether the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, Donald Sterling, made racist remarks to his girlfriend, who is black and Mexican.

Apparently, Donald Sterling made the mistake of buying a basketball team rather than taking over a high-tech company.

TMZ posted an audio of a man alleged to be Sterling scolding his girlfriend about bringing African-American guests to basketball games. According to the audio, even famed basketball player Magic Johnson was an inappropriate “black man” to bring to a game. Here’s the transcript:

“It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?” the man in the recording says. “You can sleep with [them]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that … and not to bring them to my games.”

The recording also includes an admonition not to bring Magic Johnson either.

Magic Johnson weighed in on Twitter, seemingly hinting that Sterling should lose his job:


ESPN documents a lot of other official outrage.

Oh, where to begin.

It was only a hypothetical less than a month ago – the question, “what if” the guy running the company were a racist, or an anti-Semite? Would America still be so interested in defending his freedom of speech, and his “right” to run the company?

Today we got our answer.  No one is running to Donald Sterling’s defense (though Cliven Bundy, another forgotten “free speech hero,” has yet to weigh in).  No one is defending America’s “proud tradition” of defending the employment prospects of avowed racists.  Nor should they.  And even if, as Sterling alleges, the audio is a fake, America’s reaction to the audio was authentic, and universally critical.

There is some good news for Donald Sterling. I hear Mozilla is hiring.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Please share our content on social media, including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, Google+, Pinterest and beyond. As I explained the other day, when you share our stories, you help bring us visitors, which increases our ad revenue and helps to keep this site alive. Thanks for your help. JOHN

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

188 Responses to “Move over Brendan Eich, suddenly it’s “not” ok to be a bigot businessman in America”

  1. o'shehan says:

    LOL! I never capitalize “bible” or “christianity” or “jewish” or “muslim” because their capitalization is born from a religious society, which I do not adhere to nor am governed by. My choice. Others may capitalize the words to their hearts content!

  2. o'shehan says:

    Hogwash! I’ve NEVER had one gay person EVER force their beliefs off on me! But 100% of the bullies I know want to force their religious beliefs down my throat and make a world ruled by their religious beliefs instead of equality for every human being. Every human being in this country (really the world but let’s stick with the U.S.) should be born with the same human rights and privileges afforded to them. Homosexual people, heterosexual people, transgendered people, pansexual people, black people, white people, etc. Animals don’t prevent each other from mating and forming bonds that are homosexual, and we are supposed to be so much more advanced than animals!! HA! So, opps, God got 1,500 species of animals “wrong”? I think NOT! Believe what you will. Bigots are anyone who think gays, blacks, muslims, jewish, indian, etc., do not deserve to enjoy the EXACT same rights as heterosexuals. Period.

  3. o'shehan says:

    I don’t agree with, “Just because a person strongly prefers traditional marriage doesn’t make them a bigot.” MY definition of a bigot, which is shared by many, is: Not wanting every single human being to have the exact same privileges and rights that you enjoy regardless of their gender, color, ethnicity, sexual preference, religious choices, etc. The United States isn’t about RELIGION!! It is about FREEDOM!!!!! FREEDOM FOR ALLLLLLLLLL!!! You can’t pick and choose who gets those freedoms and who do not! It has to be basic and across the board! Not based on religion! That is ludicrous to base laws and rights for American citizens off Christianity! You base laws and rights of citizens off EQUALITY!!

  4. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Hmmm. I’m gay. I’m also Lutheran. I’m very content with being Lutheran, but I don’t want to force it on others. Why do you feel that I’m trying to force my beliefs on others?

  5. Jamal Barr says:

    Only gays apparently are allowed to force their beliefs onto others.

  6. Mike_H says:

    I think it’s *very* debatable to say that intelligence, wisdom, and open-mindedness are the same as “ruthlessness, opportunism and manipulation”. In fact, I’d say it’s flat-out false to suggest that.

    It’s fine to admire people with those qualities if you like, (although plenty of people would find reason to disagree that had nothing to do with being so-called “losers”), but Eich isn’t a Gandhi or an MLK by any stretch of the imagination. And it’s also VERY debatable what you are suggesting about “winners” and “losers” in life. Exactly how are you measuring a “winner in life”? Salary? Power? Frankly, those are quite poor determinants in measuring a life well lived.

    People can be bigoted (closeminded, ignorant) about certain things and still find they have enough other skills or qualities in unrelated areas to rise to positions of prominence. It’s not contradictory at all; it’s called being human.

    That doesn’t make Eich a “winner” or a “loser”; it doesn’t take away from other successes he might have had in unrelated areas; but it also doesn’t mean that he *isn’t* a bigot in this arena. And calling out a bigot for being a bigot isn’t shutting down conversation (and didn’t, as Eich had both opportunity and platform to continue to speak, had he chosen to do so.)

    So, to me, you are basically raising a lot of issues that really have nothing to do with the point at hand. It’s irrelevant whether you think Eich is a winner or a loser, or whether you judge his detractors as winners or losers; his actions and words are legitimately described as bigoted and that doesn’t in any way shut down conversation. Ideally, this entire episode might lead him to self-reflect and perhaps grow and learn from the experience. One can always hope, anyway.

  7. Jay says:

    Yes, and he is much more reluctant to support a raging racist than he is to support a homophobe because, after all, he thinks racism is bad and homophobia not so much.

  8. Jay says:

    If Eich “prefers traditional marriage” he should marry someone of the opposite sex. No one is proposing that same-sex marriage be mandatory for everyone. No, Eich doesn’t just “prefer” traditional marriage, he wants to deny gay people the right to marry the person they love. Not the same thing at all.

  9. brandon_71087 says:

    The sheer hypocrisy of the religious right on this matter is astounding. Anyone attempting to say these two matters are unrelated is delusional. Three weeks ago some bigot is revealed to have openly bankrolled an unconstitutional amendment to harm people who had done him no harm, and he was basically forced to resign because many gay and straight people alike refused to work for a bigot. The gay community gets scolded for “violating his free speech” and forcing him out of a leadership role that is influential. Yet just three weeks later when the shoe is on the other foot and it is someone making blatantly racist views known in private, he is rightly given the NBA equivalent of the death sentence and being forced to sell his share of the team he owns against his own will, yet where are all those idiots crying for “tolerance” of this man’s “differing views?” Notice how muted they have been about it. Both this guy and Brendan Eich got what they deserved for their bigotry.

  10. Andy says:

    Someone who “prefers traditional marriage” is, in fact, a bigot — not just against gay people but against women. Traditional marriage — in the Bible and elsewhere — is a man basically purchasing a woman from her family patriarch. Variations on that form of male supremacy were the rule in our society until about a century ago. We can get into a bigotry Olympics here and decide which one of these two men is more vile. Or we can simply recognize that those in charge of private organizations have the right to decide who runs them — and that those who “prefer” traditions of marriage, or of racial mingling, or other beliefs that have been outmoded since your grandpa was a pup may rightfully be considered unacceptable.

  11. phood says:

    bible is used generically all the time….”Bill James’ Statistical Baseball Abstract is the bible for baseball statisticians.”

  12. Johnny Brittmonk says:


  13. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I went alookin’, and nowhere was I able to find a definition of Bible as any holy book. Please supply a link to your definition. The definitions I found were just for the Christian book. Apparently the Jewish holy book, The Old Testament, can also be called that. Relying on the bit of research I did, Bible is capitalized and underlined, because it’s the name of a specific book. If your links proves otherwise, my shift key will rest occasionally.

    “More than “force his religious beliefs on others”, isn’t it likely that he just supports the political measures that correspond to its word?”

    The result is the same. Innocent people get hurt just because they do not believe what he believes. Those same religious beliefs were used against interracial marriage and to support slavery.

  14. winterlude says:

    Thanks Mike. But “bible” doesn’t have to be capitalized if you use it after “their”, because it means any holy book, but I think it’s a telling reveal.

    It’s the guys holy text, which like all holy texts lays out the principles and values he lives by. More than “force his religious beliefs on others”, isn’t it likely that he just supports the political measures that correspond to its word? Why do we have to rhetorically turn him into a monster, when all evidence points to him being, yes, decent? Again, check out his blog.

    Anyway, thanks for the response. My argument was more “Eich is no Sterling” than “Eich got wronged”. I’m also one of the thousands in California. I just hate when my side descends into hysterics and name calling.

  15. Katrina Rose says:

    “Now, they’re all eating crow.”

    Jim Crow, in fact.

  16. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    You defeated your argument with “their Bible.” (I corrected your capitalization.) He’s entitled to his beliefs, but he’s not entitled to force his religious beliefs on others. Their are thousands of people in California that have good reason not to see him as a decent person.

  17. winterlude says:

    I think it’s false equivalency to compare the two.

    Eich isn’t a bigot, at least as far as we know. Just because a person strongly prefers traditional marriage doesn’t make them a bigot. It’s, ironically, bigoted (as in, “to show an intense hatred”), to assume otherwise. It’s not hard to imagine a person who believes in their bible, and lives their life by its literal word, can still be a decent person.

    While we’re dealing with words, “animus” means “strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity”. Try to reconcile that with Eich’s personal blog, on the subject of inclusiveness at Mozilla:

    I won’t defend Sterling, although I would question how much punishment we dole out for the crime of being vile. But to compare Eich with Sterling, to portray him as a bigot who displays animus, is glib, overly emotional, lazy thinking.

  18. Jay says:

    You make it sound as though students at Stanford have never heard anti-gay speech. Sorry to break it to you, but no one grows up in American society, even in the rarefied circles that get to Stanford, without hearing anti-gay speech. One can get an excellent education without ever having heard of Robert Oscar Lopez or even Robert George. Learning critical thinking does not require one to spend student fees on subsidizing a National Organization for Marriage conference. It take a lot of chutzpah to argue that students must not only expose themselves to this garbage but also pay for it.

  19. Rob Tisinai says:

    This would be more accurate:

    I think that bad speech shouldn’t be shut down, but countered with better speech. The purpose of a great education is not to fill you with appropriate ideas. It’s to bring you into the battle for truth, to arm you, and to sharpen your skills. Gay activists in college need to learn how to take apart the flawed arguments of our opponents. I’ve explicitly acknowledged the good values that lie behind attempts to silence harmful speech, but I’ve also asked people to balance that against the values of open discourse.

  20. dcinsider says:

    John, you’re a reporter. Call Andrew and ask him for a comment.

  21. Jay says:

    Yes, the attack on the Stanford students was really awful. Tisinai actually has some twisted notion that a liberal education entails that students finance a NOM conference. He thinks that being exposed to the likes of Maggie Gallagher and Robert Oscar Lopez is a good thing. The BTB people have now anointed themselves as the guardian of free speech against the pitchfork-bearing gay mobs who care nothing about anything but blood lust. They have even defended the repulsive PornoPete for his adventures in totalitarian Canada where apparently they think no one is free to say anything just because Canada has learned something about the dangers of hate speech. Sorry that they have taken this turn because they have done some excellent work in the past. I have deleted them from my bookmarks, though I admit I have gone back a few times just to see how many commenters are taking them to task. But what I have found is that they are simply contemptuous of their readers and enamored of their own prose.

  22. Rob Tisinai says:

    No, I haven’t come close to saying this at all. And anyone who thinks I am far more concerned with placating bigots than with supporting gay people hasn’t been paying attention for the last few years.

  23. Jay says:

    You certainly have come very close to saying this. You have said that you support those who are calling out Donald Sterling and wanting to “punish” him for his bigotry, but you obviously blame gay people for wanting to “punish” Eich for his. But then of course you don’t recognize that Eich is actually a bigot. You have through an elaborate process of special pleading decided that giving $1000 in support of Proposition 8 is not really evidence of homophobia because Eich hasn’t actually called anyone a faggot (at least as far as we know). You clearly have a different standard for people who express racist views and people who take homophobic actions and you have signed a pledge urging gay people not to punish homophobes. That, plus your mockery of students who want a “safe place” on campus, indicates that you are far more concerned with placating bigots than with supporting gay people.

  24. Rob Tisinai says:

    If I recall correctly, Rob Tisinai has explicitly stated that a racist is worse that a homophobe.

    No, I never have.

  25. MyrddinWilt says:

    umm, not sure why the post got attached there…

  26. Harry Underwood says:

    [He was ambushed. I know what that feels like when you oppose people for business reasons. I can’t imagine how much “fun” that can be when a group of turds gang up on you for personal reasons. I would have taken my multi-millions and headed for the hills before you say “queer eye for the straight guy”. It’s just not worth the trouble and the “brave” souls that ganged up him knew that.]

    So his own employees and volunteers who spoke against his being CEO on Twitter were “ambushing” him? They’re “turds”? They “ganged up” on him?

    I didn’t know employees and volunteers had so much power to do such AWFUL violence to his right to be a CEO. How dare they? They should have been good little Mozillan peons and shutted the Hell up like all workers should when the CEO is someone who they don’t care to work under.

    This was such a Stonewall moment for the anti-gay industry. Perpetrating the fraud of a bigoted wimp before public scrutiny is the new “homosexual deviant”. Raptor Jesus save us from the cruel sodomite thugs of the Mountain View Gay Mafia.

  27. janedarcy says:

    oh, but sexism is always OK

  28. Harry Underwood says:

    Saying what Sterling said is never deemed OK from anyone, even if Sterling were of Asian descent. Not even Black Republican activists get a pass from criticism for their classist bashing of other Black people, or of other suspect classes. Not even Black DJs who act like racist fools toward Asian tsunami victims on the mic.

    So it’s not because he’s white. It’s because he singled out people who can’t change who they are in an assholish way.

  29. MooBoo22 says:

    Excellent point! I think you should tweet a link of this article to Andrew Sullivan and the other Eich-apologists, and ask them what they think should happen to Sterling.

  30. tiponeill says:

    I keep waiting for the outrage denouncing the intolerance of the black mafia just because Sterling is exercising his first amendment right of free speech.

    Along with a patronizing lecture to the black players explaining that being intolerant to poor Sterling was no way to advance their cause.


    “That’s smart politic and bigots are not capable of that”
    What planet do you come from making statements like that ?
    Almost the entire Republican party is bigoted yet they run brilliant politics

    “dictionary definitions aside. There is more in life than reference books”.
    Again what planet do you come from ?
    The reason that dictionary’s exist is so that we can use a common language with common definitions so that we can communicate with each other.
    Dud,,,is that to difficult a concept for you to understand ? Apparently so.
    Have you considered that may be the problem here ? That it is YOU that is the problem and not everyone else.? You might want to think about that.
    You make incredibly stupid statements FREQUENTLY.
    Were you home schooled or something.?
    Clearly there is something wrong with you and if you don’t think you look like a huge fool to everyone on here (and everyone else you come into contact with I suspect) then you are moron.
    But I guess you have already proven that point here many many times.

  32. scottrose says:

    I made this comment today under the Box Turtle Bulletin post of the petition:

    Scott Rose

    April 28th, 2014 | LINK

    I am writing this comment on Yom Ha’Shoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day.

    Brendan Eich was not pressured to step down as Mozilla CEO exclusively because of his Proposition 8 donation.

    The Mozilla community — by which I mean, those within the company, and those that use its products and services — became more broadly aware of Eich’s apparent extremist views and political commitments, and could not live with them.

    Among Eich’s commitments were an apparent belief in white supremacy and specific political donation to a very long-shot candidate, Pat Buchanan who is an inveterate Jew hater and a Holocaust denier.

    The Guardian gave Eich a chance to explain his support of the Holocaust denier and Jew hater Pat Buchanan, but all Eich would say was “No comment.”

    Notably, NOM has fanned the flames of antisemitism among voters when it perceived that doing so would further its anti-gay “cause.”

    The writers of this blog are giving comfort to somebody who gives political support to a Jew-hating Holocaust denier.


    Plain and simple
    “If you can’t handle the heat, you should never have gone into the kitchen in the first place”
    One think I found interesting was Bill Mars take.
    He didn’t like it because there have been revolts against him so he thought it was wrong and not a good idea to screw with gay people…..He danced very lightly around the subject not wanting to piss off the gay crowd….maybe a little afraid of them himself…I found that funny.
    Personally I don’t care what they call gay people for defending themselves. The have been and are still maligned for decades and the Religious Right needs to be pushed back into the corner they deserve to be in.

  34. Jay says:

    Becca, you are so right. However, this troll deserves to be ignored. Your time and intellect are wasted on such a person.

  35. Jay says:

    What I find so infuriating about the stupid pledge, and especially it being signed by the BTB bloggers, is that it so clearly indicates that they really do not believe homophobia is dangerous. I can understand some of the dubious figures who signed the pledge–David Blankenhorn, for God’s sake presuming to lecture the gay community!–may simply be uninformed. But the BTB people made their reputations by exposing the sissy boy experiments and the Uganda disaster. They have documented the effects of homophobia. They know that it leads to self-hatred, violence, gay-bashing, and even suicide. Yet they think it more important to provide cover for bigots than to stand up for gay people. If I recall correctly, Rob Tisinai has explicitly stated that a racist is worse that a homophobe. Just disgusting.


    Exactly !!!
    Where is Mr. Sullivan now ? or Ken ?
    For the life of me why they took that position I just don’t know
    And I wish someone would explain what free speech means to Mr. Sullivan.


    of course your right,,,,i should have never talked to him in the first place

  38. olandp says:

    There is a difference between “hair loss” and “breakage.” Loss is when the hair falls out from the root which rarely happens from coloring treatments, if it does it is probably due to allergies to the chemicals, but again it is rare. Breakage occurs with delicate or over treated hair.

    If I were your stylist I would have recommended that you color or hilight, I almost never do perms on fine thin hair. Even is the perm comes out well, it can look frizzy because of the texture of the hair. I have several clients that I refused to perm for that reason even though they had gotten perms all their lives (it used to be the rule, baby fine hair needs a perm). Once they saw how much better their hair is, they are my devoted slaves! No one had ever told them that before. All over color, or hilighting (which does not touch the scalp) can give the hair some body. Unfortunately you will never have Stephanie Powers hair, I have fine hair and can’t so neither can you.

  39. Mawm says:

    Great point

  40. Stev84 says:

    Also remember how they viciously attacked those students who didn’t want an anti-gay conference on their campus. It wasn’t even enough that they disagreed, but they ridiculed and attacked them.

    I really like the historical stuff on BTB. The old newspaper articles of gay stuff that went public, arrests, witch hunts, medical opinions. And biographies of queer people. They recycle that every year, but it’s stuff you rarely read anywhere else.

    But I will skip on their political shit.

  41. AnthonyLook says:

    Thanks for the heads up; the link I had read that stated (former finance chair for the rnc); is now nowhere to be found now that included that tidbit. Please delete my comment, would appreciate it.

  42. Ninja0980 says:

    Rob angers me as well. I made a point on their blog (which got deleted) about the fact Rob wouldn’t be getting married at all if the ballot measure Eich and others donated to hadn’t been struck down by the courts.

  43. benb says:

    I am surprised to hear this account. Donald Stirling has a reputation in LA…stories abound. I was sure he, in his Golden Years, was up there with Howard Hughes and L. Ron Hubbard. Now TMZ claims to have tape of him speaking in complete sentences. I just don’t know if I believe them.

  44. Hue-Man says:

    The point I was trying to make – and obviously failed – is that we can
    yell at bigots who proclaim their hatred but changing the minds of “silent bigots” is a near impossible task. The U.S. Civil Rights Act and related laws are half a century old – the “Whites Only” signs and other outward expressions of racism have disappeared but how much has changed as far as “hearts and minds”?

    I’m too much of an optimist to be defeatist. The rapid swing in opinion polls regarding lesbians and gays has surprised me (although I wonder whether the favorable responses are the expected PC answer that might not prevail if a real-life situation were presented to the same poll respondents). I would like to believe that in the longer term, out public figures in politics, the judiciary, the arts, and other parts of mainstream society will change anti-gay attitudes – the open race-based hatred displayed by many Americans toward President Obama makes me take pause.

  45. TampaZeke says:

    Sterling has become to BTB what Cliven Bundy became to Fox News.

  46. TampaZeke says:

    One person made a stupid comment. They other gave money to legally deny an entire minority civil rights yet the former gets a universal call the perpetrator’s head (and rightly so) and the latter is portrayed as a victim of a “vicious”, “hateful”, “gestapo” and the victims of his action are portrayed as the vicious, hateful, gestapo that is oppressing him even though they didn’t call for a boycott, they didn’t call for him to be fired and they didn’t mount any kind of nationwide movement against him.

    Only in America!

  47. TampaZeke says:

    Translation: I haven’t figured out yet how to respond without looking either like a hypocritical ass or a supporter of a raging racist.

  48. TampaZeke says:

    I gave up!

  49. TampaZeke says:

    Hear, hear Straight Grandmother.

    I think I’m DONE with BTB. I endured some of Timothy Kincaid’s posts because he often wrote really wonderful posts too but I could always count on Jim and the rest to balance Timothy out. Now they’ve all clearly drunk the Kool Aid and it’s become unbearable over there. I’ve been a BTB fan and participant for years but I’ve already removed them from my “favorites” and am strongly considering dropping them entirely.

    It was bad enough that Jim wrote his outrageous post but then he wrote the “pitchforks” post to add fuel to the fire. Now he’s signed that ridiculous letter with the rest of the BTB crew and they’ve all completely dug in and taken up battle stations.

    I couldn’t be more disappointed. And it seems like 99% of their readers are right there with me.

    I’ll be curious if they even address this latest story. Something tells be that they’ll avoid it like the plague lest they look like hypocrites. And if they do address it get ready for some Fox News/World Net Daily quality contortions.

  50. 4th Turning says:

    This is Don Lemon from 4/26. Clips for 4/27 apparently aren’t up yet? Can’t even begin to find words
    for this thing as it unfolds-nor did it seem Don and panelists could either-it was like they were limping
    through the motions of doing their jobs without comprehending, what, the moral equivalent to 9/11…?
    And Obama abroad and obviously abashed as this story hits home.

    While over on 60 Minutes airing simultaneously… Am a tearful mess this night. Hope some will watch this story to at least where he is asked about the U.S. response. (Another “St. Louis”…)

  51. StraightGrandmother says:

    Box Turtle Bulletin

  52. StraightGrandmother says:

    It’s still going on over there, I’m quite busy contributing.

  53. StraightGrandmother says:

    AND, your private life is your privaye life.
    As long as you don’t behave on the job in an anti gay manner everything is cool.

    Actually a better example is
    She made her remarks while on vacation. There was never any evidence that she treated her black co-workers or subordinates in a racist way. Yet when literally the world put Social Pressure on her via Twitter, her company had already fired her while she was still in the air.

    The closer example I think is Justine Sacco. Both employees, both did/said something outside of their employment.

  54. BeccaM says:

    Based on the mass of his comments in recent posts, I think you can safely leave off the qualifier ‘concern’.

  55. PeteWa says:

    you pretty much nailed it.

  56. PeteWa says:

    Ken Mehlman… lol… oh god… yeah, what great good he’s done since his road to Damascus moment.

  57. StraightGrandmother says:

    “those who rise to the top rungs of success in life–while there are exceptions– are rarely stupid or narrow minded.”

    LOL! Hell I know plenty of them. What do you think Country Clubs are for? Or perhaps you have never been in one.

  58. BeccaM says:

    But first he needs to find out how to promote conservatism over liberalism before he picks a side.

  59. BeccaM says:

    Typically the problem is breakage, which means the hair only will grow back from the root and only after the scalp irritation clears up. Some have reactions to PPD, which can cause long-term thinning, as well as chronic scalp irritation.

  60. StraightGrandmother says:

    Because he is one. He’s concern trolling

  61. StraightGrandmother says:

    How about George Wallace?
    “Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever”
    You can’t get much more bigoted than that.
    But yet he changed he gave up his Bigotry and said he was wrong.
    It was coming to know black people in his life that changed him.

    Justice Kennedy: “Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.”

  62. PeteWa says:

    so is he, once he figures out the correct triangulation I’m sure he’ll let us all know.

  63. PeteWa says:


  64. BeccaM says:

    Plus it has that whole pentagon/hexagon geometry thing going, which is cool.

  65. StraightGrandmother says:

    Persuasion IS better. The force of #BigGay is helpful when people are reluctant to be persuaded.

  66. StraightGrandmother says:

    Rather THEY went backwards, I didn’t and I know you didn’t.

  67. StraightGrandmother says:

    Yes, true, however remember what Justice Kennedy said,
    “The Law can be a teacher”
    When something is illegal we generally think it is wrong.

  68. StraightGrandmother says:

    Oh we are still at it over there. The one I am most disapointed in is Rob Tisini.
    We put forth enough arguments that he should have reversed course by now.
    And he isn’t. Jim Burraway says he helped draft the letter.

  69. StraightGrandmother says:

    I am still pissed at the BTB guys and the discussion is still going on over there.
    They are digging their heals in defending the letter. In fact Jim says he helped write it.

    I am really grateful John that you are not letting this drop.
    Keep point this out.

    What the Letter and the BTB guys are saying is that it is perfectly fine to use Social Pressure to reject racism, even when that social pressure results in somebody being fired for their racism.
    But oh no, nooooo for the gays you have to go with your hat in your hand and persuade. And if the people will not be persuaded you just shrug your shoulders and walk away.

    When they wrote their first article condemning my actions, and yes I sent a couple dozen tweets to Mozill+Eich over the course of two weeks, so that was my actions, they said that since he hadn’t done anything on the job he should be given the benefit of the doubt. I pushed back very hard on that article on their blog (actually there were 2 articles and then the Public Chastising Letter) . So what do they do? They up the ante and draft and publish a very Public Letter denouncing me. Yeah me, I was one of the ones who tweeted. I never asked for Eich to be fired I asked him to state his current views on Civil Marriage for Sexual Minorities.

    John I am so glad you are not letting this go. Thanks again for this article.

  70. Julien Pierre says:

    Yes, I love this quote from him from his interview in The Guardian :

    Eich refused to be drawn on whether he would donate to a Proposition 8
    style campaign again in the future. “I don’t want to do hypotheticals,”
    he said. “I haven’t thought about that issue and I really don’t want to
    speculate because it’s not relevant.”

  71. Julien Pierre says:

    You mean they aren’t going to sign a letter called “Freedom from racism, freedom to dissent : why we must have both” ?

  72. Julien Pierre says:

    Seems his foot is still stuck in his mouth on this one.

  73. Indigo says:

    Maybe not quite so much any more.

  74. olandp says:

    I’ve been a stylist for over 30 years, yet I am unaware of “the fact repeated chemical treatments lead to increased hair loss…”

    Do you have a citation for that?

  75. Indigo says:

    I kinda like the black-and-white panda ball, it’s got a good design thing going.

  76. jm2 says:

    remember, it is okay to be bigoted against some groups while not others. the “queers” are always fair game. even other minority groups are bigoted against us.

  77. Richard says:

    I’m wondering what Sullivan thinks …….

  78. chrislib says:

    The outraged players took their paychecks and the incensed fans used their tickets. Just saying.

  79. Ninja0980 says:

    For those wondering, the folks at BTB are doubling down on their defense of Eich and how homophobia is different from racism.
    Randy Potts is the saddest one of all. He truly thinks that simply voting on a gay marriage ban doesn’t make you a bigot.
    YOu can clearly see the effects of his religious upbringing on him still.
    As for the rest, the hole they keep digging for themselves is almost at the Earth’s core.

  80. cole3244 says:

    the elites of all stripes continue to fawn over each other while the 99% suffer the consequences from a lack of action.

  81. BeccaM says:

    I think it just goes to show these ‘awards’ are mostly BS designed for PR and fund-raising.

  82. Swami_Binkinanda says:

    Face the fact that if you can’t handle this kind of a PR kerfuffle after years as CTO, you don’t have the skills to do the job. That’s the final outcome of the Eich event-he didn’t have what it takes to be a CEO.
    BP can destroy an entire ocean ecosystem and poison unknowable numbers of people with deadly solvents and spilled product and just a few years later the CEO is busy trying to screw their victims out of any more money and calling them malingerers. Still playing up the “green” logo and public service aspect of their corporation while sticking in the knife on what matters-money.

  83. Ninja0980 says:

    The LA chapter of the NAACP has egg on its face as well.
    This guy has a long history of racism, how the heck did they miss that?

  84. BeccaM says:

    Like I said above, if the bridge fits…

  85. The_Fixer says:

    Well, you, in your original comment (in its entirety) stated that:

    Being oppose to gay marriage is not the same as being opposed to your daughter being seen in public with Black people:
    Was President Obama a bigot in 2008 for opposing same sex marriage and favoring it in 2012 only after he needed money from wealthy gay donors?
    Is Hillary Clinton a bigot for being against same sex marriage (despite her personal life) until the 2012 democrat convention?
    Do some people get the privilege of lying about their stance on this issue while other are vilified?

    You later brought up Brandon Eich in a separate comment. It seems to me, based on reading your comment, that you indeed put all of these actions on equal footing, despite your later denial.

    The next paragraph, when you on one hand condemn Sterling’s actions, calling them racist, but in your other comments want to give people like him a pass because they have wealth is a bit ridiculous. Just because a person has a lot of money does not mean that they are intelligent or are open minded, as you have stated in your other comments. All it takes to have a lot of money is to not spend it. I know plenty of ignorant people with money, and fell into the trap thinking that they must be smart to have it. I have since learned otherwise. They can be cunning, they can be deceitful, or even just be born into privilege, but that does not automatically make them smart. Or benevolent, or worthy of one’s admiration. It makes them wealthy.

    Eich’s actions, as I pointed out earlier, were bigoted. If you didn’t understand why I think they fit the dictionary definition of bigotry, then there is no point in bringing it up again. You simply refuse to accept the common, dictionary standard definition that has been supplied to you repeatedly.

    Your assertions about the 2000 year-old definition of marriage is just faulty as a burned-out light bulb. Marriage has undergone many redefinitions. The one we go by now, a legally recognized union of two people that the state recognizes, is all that matters. Religion can have it’s own marriage criteria if it so chooses. We’re talking about a state-recognized partnership with certain benefits granted by that state. That’s the whole point of marriage equality. I don’t give a damn about a religion’s definition of marriage – it doesn’t carry legal weight. Who can get a marriage certificate issued by the proper legal authorities is what matters.

    Again with the Hillary Clinton thing. I chuckled at your mention of “superior British newspapers.” I trust that you’re not talking about Rupert Murdoch’s rags? Like the one he was forced to close due to scandal involving hacking people’s phones? Being as you are unwilling to go on about the Clinton’s marriage, I suppose I am going to have to find this quote from Bill Clinton and judge the veracity of it myself.

    I think you missed the point concerning Newt Gingrich. My point is that what disqualifies him from commenting on the sanctity of marriage is his personal handling of his own marriages. Any time a public figure wishes to lecture anyone about morality, he runs the risk of having the microscope trained on his own life. You state that you would disqualify him from being president, in your mind, because of “his girth”. Have something against people who are overweight? That sounds suspiciously like.. oh, never mind. His “girth” is the least of my concerns. I think what disqualifies him is that he is little more than a scammer who sells “awards” for money and simply can’t be trusted.

    Scott Brown? Didn’t he initially support same-sex marriage and then later change his mind when subjected to pressure from the far-right fringe of the Republican party? I will have to refresh my memory on the details, but I do know that he took up some awfully wing-nutty positions on a whole host of issues, which is why Massachusetts voters turned him out of office.

    I think we’re at an impasse here. There is no point continuing this conversation; you’re obstinate about a number of the side-issues involved in this discussion and aren’t being intellectually honest. I really think that there’s no reason to reply to this message as I won’t answer, and your response will be no different that your previous comments, which insufficiently address other’s comments.

  86. BeccaM says:

    Feel free to differ.

    I’ve been reading your comments with some interest and keep noting particular dishonest debating techniques, including using partial quotes from previous commenters, presented out of context. Hair-splitting where you get to define the word ‘bigotry’ but no one else has the same privilege. Never actually explaining exactly how a racist or homophobe is ‘persuaded’ to change his or her basic attitudes regarding race or sexual orientation. Straw man propositions where you claim to know what is in the heart of those who have expressed bigoted notions. Equating someone who is set in their ways and never changes their bigoted attitudes with someone who clearly has changed and evolved.

    Saying we can draw no conclusions about the beliefs of a man who has donated exclusively to far right conservative Republicans, going back to 1992 when he supported gay-hating, race-baiting, Holocaust-denying Pat Buchanan. A man who has said nothing and done nothing to indicate his attitudes have changed in more than two decades. But we’re all supposed to judge ‘Hillary’ and ‘Barry’ forever by politically opportunistic positions they’ve since publicly disavowed and sought to make amends for. (BTW, the ‘Barry’ thing is a dead giveaway, a gratuitous attempt to disrespect and to slur.)

    There often comes a point in these long comment threads when I realize we have someone who is arguing disingenuously, and I reached that point hours ago. Then when you trotted out the position that marriage is an institution that hasn’t changed in 2000 years, the mask came off entirely.

    In short, if the bridge fits…

  87. mirror says:

    Yeh, the Blacks get all the good leads.

  88. 2karmanot says:

    “I’m just a lowly “troll”” Indeed you are.

  89. BeccaM says:

    Be prepared to wait a long time.

  90. BeccaM says:

    It’s called “enough vanity to want to look younger, but not enough self-discipline to maintain it.”

    Then there’s the fact repeated chemical treatments lead to increased hair loss… lol

  91. BeccaM says:

    Amen to that. And I think this sport is the one with the big orange ball, as opposed to the oblong orange ball or the hard rubber thingy. ;-)

    Shows how much I follow sports, too.

  92. Stev84 says:

    Timothy Kincaid being his usual arrogant, stupid, hypocritical self:

    “I have no idea who Stirling is or what he has done. And I don’t have time at the moment to go find out.

    But we usually don’t cover sports stories here.”

  93. Stev84 says:

    Obama only played political games. He was for same-sex marriage when he was a Senator. Then he suddenly waffled around when he ran for President and was careful in the first few years. But eventually he realized that straddling the line like that was a liability. That change wasn’t some magic epiphany. He didn’t “evolve”. He was just being a politician.


    “Exactly who would claim to be a registered Independent who was not that?”

    Answer: A Republican who is ashamed to admit he is a Republican but agrees with all of their issues.

    “I don’t believe any couple of politicians have the ability to destroy this great”

    Answer: Not the case. Bush / Cheney Co almost succeeded in destroying the country and either McCain or Romney would have finished the country off if they had won the election.

    “I have the means to pick up and live somewhere”
    Answer: Somehow I doubt that given that you can’t comprehend something as simple as the definition of the word bigot.

  95. Stan7 says:

    Exactly who would claim to be a registered Independent who was not that?
    I think you will find that coming to conclusions while ignoring the facts is a great way to lose.
    I don’t believe any couple of politicians have the ability to destroy this great country. If I believed that I would revoke my citizenship. I have the means to pick up and live somewhere else but see no reason to do that.

  96. Gindy51 says:

    Glad she did, maybe she’d had enough of him.

  97. Stan7 says:

    {don’t you understand that once a person changes their mind then they are no longer a bigot}

    I see–as soon as they see it your way they are no longer “narrow minded” and certainly not “stupid”.
    In my experience most bigots are not capable of seeing things differently–ever. Of course on television and on the internet they change all the time–not so in life.
    I have seen many that changed their views on race–none of them were bigots. who do I believe–a blogger or my lying eyes and ears?

  98. goulo says:

    Aha, OK. Thanks for clarifying.

    I didn’t state that he changed his mind because of our criticizing him. I don’t know why he changed his mind, and I certainly won’t claim credit for it. :)

    But if we’re theorizing that he hid his true views for temporary political expediency, then for all we know, if younger Obama claimed to support it, then that could have been for political expediency.

    Ultimately, I don’t know what he truly felt in his heart, but his actions for the first years of his presidency were bigoted against equal rights for gay people, and arguably actions ultimately matter much more than one’s hidden private principles, if one betrays those hidden private principles for temporary expediency.


    Interesting, all of your opinions insofar as our conversations have been very “Conservative Republican” yet you claim to be independent. Fact of the matter is, as I have suggested, that your are a Republican but are just to ashamed to admit it as many are after Buch / Cheney Co destroyed the country. A rose by any other name you know.

  100. Stan7 says:

    [You seem to have the facts wrong. Obama didn’t oppose marriage equality, he just refused to support it in his first term. Which are actually two different things.
    In 2008 he stated that he believe “marriage was between a man and a women” I didn’t believe he meant that and it seems you did not believe him either.
    I agree with the rest of what you wrote–not sure why you responded as if I did not.

  101. Stan7 says:

    Motivation does matter in this case. He is not and was not ever a bigot.
    He believed in it all along and pounced when he thought the opportunity was right. That’s smart politic and bigots are not capable of that, dictionary definitions aside. There is more in life than reference books.
    Anyway that is how things get changed and I am speaking as one of his critics though not on this issue.

  102. NCMan says:

    don’t you understand that once a person changes their mind, then they are no longer a bigot. But, up until the point that they do change their mind, they are a bigot. You don’t get to claim that someone isn’t a bigot because they might change their mind in the future.

    You can state your opinion that calling them a bigot (because they are one) won’t help to get them to change their mind. But, that is quite different than claiming they are not a bigot.

  103. LEFTLEANINGTX says:

    Ah you have finally revealed yourself !!

    You and Eich both refuse to accept gay people getting married because you’ll think that changes the definition of marriage and that it is wrong because it upsets an institution that you and he incorrectly believe has been in place for over 2000 years and that it creates a slippery slope 50-60 years from now.
    In reality you yourself don’t accept these changes either but you don’t want to be called a bigot so you defend Eich.
    Makes perfect sense now why you are unwilling to accept a definition and why you keep shifting the argument. Not so cleaver way to hide your own bigotry.

  104. Stan7 says:

    Yes. I believe the President believed in same sex marriage all along but was not willing to risk that opinion at the national level–his only company was Dick Cheny.. There is a video of him supporting it when he was a younger tate senator.
    You did state that Obama changed his mind after criticism and I responded that it was not the critics that changed his mind–he took a risk on taking the same sex marriage stance because he needed the 2012 campaign dollars. It also came after Biden made his off hand remarks. Instead of folding he doubled down. Turned out to be a smart risk. Got to hand it to the President for being a smart politician.

  105. Stan7 says:

    So you voted for Romney? If so, there’s no point in discussing anything with you.
    I blanked the presidential section of the ballot since my state was spoken for it did not matter. Do you really think it’s wise to refuse to discuss politics with almost have the voters in this country? Is that a winning strategy–to just give up?

  106. Stan7 says:

    [Look at this point you are just saying stupid stuff or are you just stupid]

    You must be in sales and marketing–I can tell by your “soft sell” approach or I suppose I could simply reply “stupid is as stupid does”.

    [I have no interest in trying to persuade you about defined word in the dictionary]
    Not necessary–of course the dictionary definition of the word “bigot” does not include the phrase “but you have to be really stupid” any more than it reads “most bigots wear red sweaters”. You learn that most bigots are stupid and impossible to persuade through life’s experience or I suppose you don’t learn it at all.
    I am a registered Independent, certainly not a member of the Tea Party and you’ve got to be kidding about the Mormon crack–try getting out a little more often.
    Lastly, I have positioned myself so it does not matter who or what type of scrum (especially Hillary) win elections. I learned a long time ago that financial independence and liberty go hand in hand. It’s perfectly OK for you to dismiss me but I strongly suggest that show more open mindedness towards those that simply do not see it your way. And if you find the things I say “laughable” then by all means laugh; laugher is something we could all use in greater quantities. Good night and good luck.

  107. Guest B says:

    lift (not life)

  108. Guest B says:

    I presume that Box Turtle Bulletin supports Donald Sterling’s right not to be drummed out from his business because of his private beliefs. C’mon, Box Turtle Bulletin, start another petition. You can life wording whole cloth from the petition on Brendan Eich’s right not to be drummed out from his business because of his private beliefs.

  109. goulo says:

    I have no idea what you’re on about. Are you suggesting that Obama secretly supported marriage equality all along, but just pretended not to for political convenience? It seems pretty obvious to me that he was not a supporter of marriage equality in the first part of his presidency.

    And why do you think I mistakenly believe that Obama cares about being criticized? I said nothing about Obama’s attitude toward being criticized, and I don’t see how that relates to the thread so far.

    You seem to be off on your own unclear agenda, unconnected to this thread.

  110. Stan7 says:

    [Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person’s ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, opinion, or other characteristics]
    If you and your dictionary are correct than nobody would ever be persuaded about anything and everybody that doesn’t see it your way would be a bigot.
    Nice work if you can get it but I’m not much for circle jerking.

  111. Stan7 says:

    Not necessarily. It’s possible and likely that Eich doesn’t believe that marriage is a right and does not want to tamper with an institution that has been in place for over 2000 years. Changing what marriage means (which you have no trouble doing) could be seen by some as a radical and unnecessary step by reasonable people. Nobody really knows what the effect of this will be on our culture 30-40-50 years down the road. It is an experiment of sorts. I suggest that you will get further with those types of people by persuading them rather than labeling them as “bigots”.
    It’s notable that you have no problems expanding the meaning of the word “marriage” but will not consider life’s experiences to understand its true meaning of what it is to be bigoted.

  112. mark_in_toronto says:

    Yeah . . . prison is a great example, isn’t it?
    And everything mentioned is sad but true . . . especially in certain countries.

  113. douglas01 says:

    The silence from the gay conservative crowd is deafening compared to the Brendan Eich mess. Come on guys where is your free speech defense now? I’m waiting. . . .

  114. GarySFBCN says:

    Holy fuck – Eich had plenty of opportunities to speak and he refused to do so.

  115. GarySFBCN says:

    Racism is a form of bigotry.

    Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

  116. LEFTLEANINGTX says:

    Look at this point you are just saying stupid stuff or are you just stupid ?
    I have not offered you an opinion. All I have done is tried to show you that is bigot is a defined term which this man qualifies for You just don’t like the use of the word to describe this man for some reason, are you Merman yourself ? Don’t answer that because I really don’t care.
    I have no interest in trying to persuade you about defined word in the dictionary. You should proudly walk around ignorantly using incorrect words. I’m sure because of this discussion it’s probably not the only word that you don’t understand.
    You are just refusing to accept a defined word in the dictionary. It’s not an unusual thing for a Republican like yourself to deny reality and go off on some tangent that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Kinda of sounds like a Tea Bagger instead of a Morman actually.
    At any rate your ignorance bores me ,,,,yawn,,,,,so I shall dismiss you.
    Think about me on election night when President Hillary Clinton wins!!.
    I will think of you and all Republicans as they go down in flames….lol

  117. GarySFBCN says:

    Regardless of the motivation, he took a bigoted position on the issue of same-sex marriage and that makes him a bigot.

    So you voted for Romney? If so, there’s no point in discussing anything with you.

  118. GarySFBCN says:

    Well if there are “a lot of LGBT-haters and racists in the general population” then it must be OK, right?

    Sorry, we must fight bigotry and hatred every time we see it. And if you don’t think that the taboos on racist jokes, etc, in public had a profound impact upon society, you are blind. What’s happened in the years since Obama was elected is that those taboos were ignored by the right-wing for political gain. By electing a black president we took two steps forward. But the vile neo-racism on the right took us one step backwards.

  119. Stan7 says:

    [something isn’t working in that brain department thing]
    And somewhere else as well in all likelihood.

  120. Stan7 says:

    Obama is hardy a bigot and that’s coming from somebody who wouldn’t vote for him if he ran for dog catcher.
    His stance was driven by politics and political convenience and it’s nothing new. Who exactly believed him anyway?
    Do you mistakenly believe that Obama cares about being criticized at this point in his life? On the other hand he cared a lot about gay donors in the 2012 election.

  121. NCMan says:

    you seem to make a distinction between someone being a bigot and whether or not it is a good strategy to actually call them a bigot. Seems to me you are saying that they are bigots, we just shouldn’t call them out on it.

  122. Stan7 says:

    He was ambushed. I know what that feels like when you oppose people for business reasons. I can’t imagine how much “fun” that can be when a group of turds gang up on you for personal reasons. I would have taken my multi-millions and headed for the hills before you say “queer eye for the straight guy”. It’s just not worth the trouble and the “brave” souls that ganged up him knew that.
    Rah, rah they had already won anyway. How many business owners do you think want that kind of trouble and publicity going forward? Do you think they will be eager to hire openly gay employees down the road for the pleasure of risking this type of publicity?

  123. GarySFBCN says:

    Oh, the irony:

    Donald Sterling scheduled to receive NAACP award amid controversy”

    A May 15 banquet for the Los Angeles chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People just became a lot more intriguing. The group is planning to honor Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling with a lifetime achievement award. This is the 100th anniversary of the L.A. chapter.

    Given his history of racism, this never should have been scheduled.

  124. lynchie says:

    The owner of the company where I work is constantly sending out “jokes” about minorities. He seldom says anything publicly but if you are deemed a liberal by his standards you get regular emails with the cartoons and jokes. Overwhelmingly the managers in the company are of the same breed. Macho, sports fanatic, mouth breathers who exude their racism and bigotry. You can actually smell it on them.

  125. Stan7 says:

    [Stupidity has nothing to do with bigotry. A lot of very intelligent
    people are bigots. So your argument that he can’t be a bigot because he is smart is again ridiculous]
    Indeed it does, it goes hand in hand with being narrow minded and being able to see things one way.
    A of very intelligent people do not agree with your opinion Try persuading them instead of labeling them as bigots.

  126. Stan7 says:

    [People who didn’t agree with marriage equality 10 years ago *were* bigots. If they changed their mind, if they learned, then they grew and stopped being bigots]

    Exactly, it’s not a state of mind and some peoples opinions can be changed.

    [ “exceptions” that rise to the top, though — the qualities of ruthlessness, opportunism, and manipulating others, that allow people to rise to the top, those qualities are NOT synonyms for “intelligent” or “wise” or “open minded”.]
    Yes they are. We take the good with the bad whether we like it or not. I have always find it notable that the losers in life love to deflect their mistakes and flaws on the winners in life. It’s a very old story.
    Eich is still a winner.

  127. Stan7 says:

    I do not regard Sterling, Eich’s, Hillary’s and the President’s actions on the “same level” as you say.
    Sterling–His comments and actions, past and present are indefensible. I believe his is a racist. Whether he is allowed to remain an owner is up to and ought to be up to the NBA commissioner and the other owners. And yes, screw the players, they can influence things but they don’t run the show yet.
    Eich: I do not believe he or anybody else is a bigot just because he / they actively supported prop. 8. There are reasons for opposing same sex marriage and reasons for supporting it. Many who did not support it as recently as 10 — 15 years ago now support it–where all of them bigots or did they need to be persuaded that a substantial change in the definition of an institution over 2000 years old was good or at least something that would not cause harm?
    I would like to hear his reasons and perhaps try to persuade him. It may be an old fashioned notion but I believe it is one that is worthwhile.
    Hillary–You are correct that her personal life should have nothing to do with her candidacy (or lack of one). Perhaps I should stop reading the superior British newspapers, especially when they quote Bill Clinton.
    Please forget I mentioned it. I would however disqualify Newt based on his girth.
    Obama–normally he told the truth during his 2008 campaign but when it came to same sex marriage he did not. I had more problems with him when he told the truth.
    I do not read this blog on a regular basis. In reference to DOMA, you may also want to thank the handful of republicans that supported that in 2010 especially Senator Scott Brown. His thanks were returned by MA voters by supporting a candidate that accused him of participating in the “republican war on women” despite his support for same sex marriage, abortion and the fact that he raised four daughters. DOMA would not have become law without those handful of republican votes, including Scott’s vote.

  128. Benz981 says:

    But… But…. they’re “sincerely held” though!! Hehe ;)

  129. not donald says:

    Stop reverse racism and the double standard that exists for only one faction of minorities that in fact causes the divide and anger in the first place. Equall for EVERYONE!!
    Yes his comments as the owner make it much worse than if he was just a guy with nothing, yet if he was in the wrong area of town..being white puts him in a bad spot..
    look how everyone avts in prison…in certain neighborhoods rich and poor….no1 wants the wrong color to be in their neighborhood….sad but true.

  130. GarySFBCN says:

    I forgot to post this here last night – here is how I’m responding in comment sections, etc, on news sites:

    Team owner makes bigoted statements in a private conversation and the response to the justified outrage is good.

    CEO supports bigotry by donating money to prop 8 and bigoted candidates and the response to the justified outrage is that it is a ‘witch-hunt’ by ‘the gays’.

    Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Bigotry is bigotry and any company or organization that has an owner, president or CEO – the face of that company or organization – who is a bigot should face harsh questions, a boycott or worse.

    I’m not talking about having a ‘litmus test’ for hiring everyone. But for a CEO, etc, it is different. And when information surfaces about bigotry, the company and/or organization has to act.

    I’m hoping that Sterling is forced to sell the team.

  131. MyrddinWilt says:

    Actually, the rant did seem to me to be a bit Alzheimer-ish.

    The guy has a black GF but does not want her seen with black people… Sounds like something isn’t working in that brain department thing.

  132. MyrddinWilt says:

    You seem to have the facts wrong. Obama didn’t oppose marriage equality, he just refused to support it in his first term. Which are actually two different things.

    Not making my agenda their priority does not mean that a politician is a bigot. ME was not the only rights issue on the agenda at the time. We also had the issue of gays in the military if you remember.

    Taking a stand means expending political capital and that is a big deal. That is why it is necessary to put such a lot of pressure on politicians to get them to commit to things.

  133. Indigo says:

    So much ado about a sport. I don’t follow hockey so I don’t really have an opinion but it’s nice to see that the trolls are busily pumping the AmBlog ratings.

  134. Mike_H says:

    It’s more than just “exceptions” that rise to the top, though — the qualities of ruthlessness, opportunism, and manipulating others, that allow people to rise to the top, those qualities are NOT synonyms for “intelligent” or “wise” or “open minded”. Life’s experiences tell most of us that there’s no connection between rising to the top and true wisdom or open-mindedness or even overall intelligence. Most CEOs, in fact, are terribly short-sighted, and will sacrifice the future for short-term market gain; not a quality overly useful anywhere else in society.

    People who didn’t agree with marriage equality 10 years ago *were* bigots. If they changed their mind, if they learned, then they grew and stopped being bigots. Calling a rose a rose isn’t shutting off conversation — in fact, dancing around the issue and refusing to call people out on bigotry and ignorance just exacerbates the problem, doesn’t resolve it.

    Eich made it perfectly clear — and he DID have every opportunity to explain — that he hadn’t changed. In fact, part of being a good CEO is knowing how to handle public controversies. Eich handled this controversy *miserably badly*. Proof enough that he wasn’t qualified for the position.

  135. olandp says:

    Why is it these old wealthy men (this jack-ass and The Donald, although he isn’t that wealthy) do not understand that they have to touch up their new growth if they are going to color their hair. It is not natural to have dark ends and white roots. Looks like an old man trying to look young, then you put it on top of that face!

  136. susano says:

    Different Don Sterling. That Don Sterling “was the 2002 Utah Olympics’ local marketing chief and fundraiser working with Romney”.

  137. caphillprof says:

    “It was only a few weeks ago that America was lecturing the gay community about its intolerance for intolerance, for objecting to a bigot (in fact, an anti-gay activist, Brendan Eich) running a major American corporation (in this case, the Mozilla Foundation).”

    Eich was appointed CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, not the Mozilla Foundation. The corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the foundation.

  138. goulo says:

    To answer your question: yes, of course Obama was a bigot when he opposed equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, just as someone opposed to interracial marriage is a bigot.

    And many of us criticized Obama for it, just as we criticize someone for racist bigotry.

    I’m not sure what your point is in asking the question. Are you mistakenly believing that no one criticized Obama and that there was some double-standard or something?

  139. NCMan says:

    you keep acting as if Eich wanted to explain himself and wasn’t given the opportunity. In fact, he refused to explain himself. And, he wouldn’t say whether he would support Prop 8 again today if given the chance.

  140. LEFTLEANINGTX says:

    If you don’t think you have change the definition then you either have a
    problem reading or your ability to comprehend

    Stupidity has nothing to do with bigotry. A lot of very intelligent
    people are bigots. So your argument that he can’t be a bigot because he is smart is again ridiculous.

    Again, his ability to change his views does not alter the fact that he is a
    bigot TODAY. Future learning and understanding do not alter his bigoted
    thoughts of today. I don’t understand why that is difficult concept for you.
    You keep going back to that argument and it is flawed.

    I DON’T have to hear his story. I know enough already to make a determination
    Its is common knowledge that Mormons because of their religious beliefs are anti gay, that means unaccepting of gay people which means by definition that he is a bigot and the Morman’s in general are bigots because of their views towards gays. He supported his religious belief by donating to an anti gay cause READ THE DEFINITION I POSTED FOR YOU.
    Furthermore, he has not renounce what he did. He is standing by what he did. He has not apologized or said that he has seen the errors in his ways so although he may in the mythical world of yours change his position in 20 years it will not alter that he is a bigot today

    No people who were anti gay 20 years ago and changed their minds are not
    bigot today BUT they were bigot 20 years ago.

    There is NO discussion of a definition of a word.. The definition of a
    word is printed in a DICTIONARY. We agree as a society to use words and their corresponding definitions so that we can share ideas. You can’t share ideas if you change the definition of a word, You may just be guilty of using the wrong word, has that occurred to you?
    I have the dictionary that supports what I’m saying. What do you have ? Your opinion of a word ? It doesn’t work that way.

    Look it is senseless to explain this to you because you are unwilling to
    accept the very definition of the word bigot or definitions in general I guess.

    Oh rest assure we WILL nominate Hillary and i’d love it if Ms Warren would
    run along with her and that 72 year old very smart very experienced woman is going to kick the shit out of which ever clown they pick from the clown care of candidates the Republicans have to offer. If you think the Republicans are going to snatch a victory out of this you are fooling yourself and probably thought Romney was going to win by a landslide.

    But given your dislike of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Warren and your belief that
    the Republicans will win betrays your independent claim as i suspected and you are just like a like a lot of Republicans who are just to ashamed to admit it after Bush / Cheney Co. drove the country into the ditch.

  141. Stan7 says:

    Have not changed any definitions.
    While being “stupid” is not part of the dictionary definition of the word “bigot” life’s experience tells most of us that those who rise to the top rungs of success in life–while there are exceptions– are rarely stupid or narrow minded. In fact if you could pick a group that is the most capable of changing their views they are it.
    By tagging Eich as a bigot without hearing or wanting to hear what he has to say tells people that you don’t care what he has to say and are not even interested if he were to change his mind. Most people in this country that now believe same sex marriage is OK did not believe that as recently as 10 to 20 years ago. Are they still bigots or are they only bigots if they disagree with you today?
    I don’t think shutting off discussions by labeling people does very much to advance your or anybody’s viewpoints.
    Regarding Hillary–please nominate her. In case she’s not running, please go with Liz Warren. Republicans are indeed good at snatching defeat from victory and they could always nominate a bad candidate but it would take a mutant to lose to a 72 year old lady that almost half of the country truly can’t stand.
    Still, I will be keeping my fingers crossed because you have some good points regarding Hillary.

  142. The_Fixer says:

    Although you say you never defended him, my reading of your comment is that Sterling’s, Eich’s, Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s actions are all on the same level. Let’s review some things.

    Eich spent $1000 on Proposition 8, and more supporting anti-gay politicians. Part of the purpose of Proposition 8 was to annul existing same-sex marriage. That is a pretty hateful act. This wasn’t some some opinion expressed in private. He made himself part of the public discourse by putting his money where his mouth is. Proposition 8 was passed through the spread of misinformation and relied on mistaken stereotypical slurs to “make its case.” I call that a series of bigoted actions that he supported, which is in turn is a bigot’s actions. He never recanted or apologized for his action.

    The only time that Obama could be accused of being a bigot was when his justice department wrote that awful brief full of inaccurate information in defense of DOMA. I don’t know for sure who was in charge of writing that brief, but it is ultimately on Obama’s back. I can call that a bigoted action, and if one wants to refer to Obama as a bigot at that moment in time, I have no objection. However, these days one would have to call him a “reformed bigot” as he has endorsed Same-Sex Marriage, and he has influenced public opinion in a positive way. Which is pretty redeeming, in my book.

    Your definition of bigotry is a whole lot different than mine, and I suspect a lot of others would disagree as well.

    As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, what in blazes are you talking about? Please elaborate and clarify. I have no knowledge about how “normal” their marriage is, and don’t know what a “normal” marriage is nowadays. Everybody’s marriage is different, and you’d be surprised to find out how different your neighbors’ marriages are.

    I can understand strong disagreements with Hillary Clinton and not wanting her to be president. However, the nature of your comment makes me think that it’s more than that with you.

    I didn’t worry about any other potential candidate’s marriage unless they make it an issue (see Newt Gingrich and his high moral requirements versus the way he honored the sanctity of marriage by going through it three times). Otherwise, as long as they are being lawful and everyone consents, their marriage practices are no more interesting to me than my neighbor’s. Believe me, I have no interest in my neighbors’ marriages

    One more thing: You really have not read much of this blog. If you would, you’d know that when the Obama administration was defending DOMA, John had a series of articles on the subject that was quite critical of Obama. It was Joe Sudbay, at the time another Americablog writer, who met with the President and helped to change his mind. In short, we are not a gathering of “Obamabots” here. Same with Hillary Clinton. A lot of us here are not happy to vote for her, and some here simply won’t vote for her.

    Don’t mistake our united stand against bigotry as our collective endorsement of everyone who has a D after their name. It’s a lot more complex than that.

  143. LEFTLEANINGTX says:

    While I don’t agree with you I do understand what your saying.
    However, given the very definition of bigot and bigotry you are just wrong. You don’t get to change the definition of a word and then argue that you are right. I don’t need all of the facts to determine Eich’s bigotry. We need know nothing more than he donated money to deprive a group of rights, that qualifies as not accepting them which qualifies as bigotry.
    The fact that you don’t believe Eich is a bigot because he is self made and very successful is ridiculous and regardless if he capable of changing his mind or not does not alter the definition either,,,that is also ridiculous.
    This argument has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and her options don’t alter Eich bigotry with ,,,that is also ridiculous
    Insofar as Hillary’s unfavorable ratings let me inform you a few other facts.
    Fact: The country is becoming 2% more non white every four years and those none whites don’t like the Republican party or their policies
    Fact: Because of the war on women’s rights they are fleeing the Republican party as well.
    Fact: The youth are fleeing the Republican party because of their positions on social issues .
    Fact: Amazingly the Republican party has lost the Hispanic vote because of immigration issues.
    Fact: The Republicans are literally dying off in nursing homes with no one to replace them.
    Fact: The Tea Party has fractured the Republican party. They believe in purity above all else and only support those candidates even if they lost elections !!
    It is inescapable given all of those FACTS that Hillary Clinton is heavily favored.
    It is not uncommon that conservative right leaning people call themselves independents to ashamed to call themselves Republican.

  144. Stan7 says:

    I don’t believe they are both acts of bigotry.
    Sterling is a racist, not a bigot. He is self made, smart and knows what he’s doing.
    Similarly, Eich is also self made, smart and far from narrow minded. We don’t know why he donated to that cause and the ones that wanted him out did not want to know why. That’s the kind of thinking normally associated with bigotry. Eich may very well hate gays but he was not expected to explain himself and frankly, who the hell would under those circumstances–most would take their multi-millions and move on and so he did just that.
    I am a registered Independent and have no love for any particular news network.
    As for name calling and prejudging people. These are traits normally associated with small minded, ignorant people that do not care much for getting to the facts of the matter. They tend to end most discussions with those traits. Some might even refer to those kind of people as “bigots”.

  145. Island In The Sky says:

    Sterling had this coming to him. The negative waves of publicity and shame slamming him are not necessarily unwarranted. He richly deserves what’s happening to him, given his racist past.

    But I wonder about the audio. His gold-digging bitch girlfriend, I suspect, set him up and then handed the tape over to TMZ. If this is what it takes to bring him down then, so be it.

  146. LEFTLEANINGTX says:

    Wrong again !!

    Your logic “They can sometimes be persuaded to change their views” negates their prior bigotry if flawed and literally laughable.

    How you can possible think that someone who can possible be persuaded or not to change their views alters the definition bigotry is amazing.

    Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person’s ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, opinion, or other characteristics


  147. Stan7 says:

    They are not both acts of bigotry.
    Sterling is a racist, not a bigot. He’s knows exactly what he’s doing and most certainly knows it is wrong and does not care. Bigots are narrow minded, normally stupid people incapable of changing their views. Sterling is very successful and is no fool.
    I do not believe Eich is a bigot because:
    He to is self made and very successful.
    We do not know if he is is incapable of changing his mind because he was never given a chance to publicly explain himself or his donation. And let’s face it, under the circumstances who in their right mind would bother speaking up when they could just keep their millions and walk away.
    Hillary Clinton (check out her unfavorable ratings in polls before you elect her) and The President were used as examples because they lied about their positions when it was politically convenient. I did not mention their names to deflect from anything.
    I am a registered Independent and have no particular love for any news network. I don’t think much of people that pass judgment on others without knowing the facts about them. Name calling is for ignorant, foolish people with low intellect. Some might even refer to them as “bigots”.

  148. LEFTLEANINGTX says:

    To be clear Mr Eich donation of $1000 to deny gay people rights and to remove the rights that they have been granted easily qualify as a refusal to accept a group which is the very definition of a bigot. For the life of me I can’t understand why you can’t see that as obvious as it is.

  149. LEFTLEANINGTX says:

    I don’t care if you like the comparison or not, it is an accurate one given the definition of Bigot from the Webster dictionary ( if you find that an acceptable place to find a definition )
    : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
    Given that definition Mr. Eich refusal to accept the members of a particular group, in his case the “gay” group would indeed make him a bigot.
    So you are just WRONG.

  150. LEFTLEANINGTX says:

    How so ?
    They are both acts of bigotry and intolerance. Explain yourself.

    To make that statement and then divert the subject to President Obama and soon to be President Hillary Clinton is not a sufficient argument, it’s not even an argument at all.
    This is not an uncommon tactic for a right winger.
    Sir, if lying is so important to you then you need not look past your own party and Fox news who are both in a constant act of lying.
    The is a STUPID comment and more that likely if you see a difference then it is revealing your own bigotry.

  151. Ninja0980 says:

    We know it won’t be coming.
    We’re supposed to just accept people donating to ballot measures to take away our rights, compare us to pedophiles,zoophiles and who demean our relationships with understanding and compassion.
    And if we don’t, we’re the intolerant ones.
    Sad to say but I lost quite a bit of respect for Randy Potts and the bloggers of Box Turtle BUlletin this past week.

  152. Ninja0980 says:

    Mentioned it above but I’m not surprised at all.
    Let’s be blunt, you can’t cite religious beliefs as a reason to be sexist or racist but you can use them to be homophobic and have people rally to your side.

  153. Stan7 says:

    I believe she’s going to walk away with a cool 7 figure settlement. Priceless. But what do I know, I’m just a lowly “troll”!

  154. BillFromDover says:

    Once bitten, twice shy?

    I believe Sterling’s utter lack of empathy is from never having to work in a cotton field?

  155. Ninja0980 says:

    We all knew what the answer to your scenario would be weeks ago, this simply confirms it.
    Let’s be blunt, it is still acceptable to be homophobic in this country, and if you call it out, you’re the intolerant one.
    I want to see want Andrew Sullivan, John Corvino, Ken Mehlman and the others have to say about this.

  156. Stan7 says:

    Troll? I beg to differ. By the way that’s and interesting non-response, response.

  157. Stan7 says:

    Agree about Sterling and never defended him, his past or what he just recently said and I should have named his girl friend, who is young enough to be his daughter.
    I didn’t care for the comparison to Eich who I do not believe is a bigot. I don’t agree with his stance on same sex unions but do not believe his opposition means he is a bigot. Some people that oppose same sex unions may very well be bigots or even hate gays but we don’t know why he made that contribution. I would like to hear his reasons, not close the conversation.
    There were many people who previously believed that segregation in the south was the natural order of things. Some of them were bigots and they’re minds could never be changed. Some of them, similar to Hillary and Barry changes their minds when it was politically advantageous. Others changed their mind over time and were genuine in that–it’s the latter that are worth talking to and in my opinion they shouldn’t be lumped in with bigots.
    I’m going to ignore your comment on Hillary’s personal life because…just because! Seriously, you can’t possibly believe they have a normal “marriage”?

  158. BillFromDover says:

    And even if, as Sterling alleges, the audio is a fake,…?

    Hey, here’s a novel idea – the commissioner givers him two choices:

    Either admit up front and immediately that the tape is authentic and deal with the consequences now, or deny it, and and if proved authentic later, be prepared to deal with every fuckin’ sledgehammer (both legally and bqhatevwr) that the Comish, the league and whatever other interested party can pound ya with.

    Keeping in mind that the only thing worse that a raving bigot is a lying, raving bigot.

    My advise would be to dump your team, the broad that obviously set ya up (listen to all the leading questions), take your riches and move to Bermuda or some lesser known tax haven where ya won’t be ashamed by being recognized when showing your face in public.

  159. stan7 says:

    I believe the NAACP gave him an award but had to revoke it after his comments. That’s about as far up the right wing ladder as it’s likely to get. Smart folks those NAACP’s–can’t sell them any wooden nickels.

  160. Stan7 says:

    Never believed either of them and wouldn’t vote for either of them for dog catcher.
    In fact Obama is on video speaking in favor of homosexual marriage when he was a state senator. The other despicable person couldn’t tell the truth to save her fat ass.
    Here is some free advice–any fool that thinks there is such a thing as “marriage equality” has obviously never been married. I think what your looking for is the equality to make a really dumb contract–that’s why I support your cause.
    Don’t bother to thank me–your misery will be all the gratitude necessary.

  161. The_Fixer says:

    I actually think that is his much younger girlfriend. That’s not the crux of the issue, though.

    1) Donald Sterling has a long history of racism. This is not one incident.
    2) In the case of Obama, he had expressed approval of same-sex marriage previous to running for president. He changed that position because he did not think that he would have had the support of the public had he expressed that support. Which makes it an act of political cowardice, not necessarily bigotry.
    3) I don’t understand the reference to Hillary Clinton’s personal life, but let’s say she is not a bigot at heart and had learned something. Or she is an opportunist, or a political coward. Not the same as bigotry. By the way, it is the “Democratic Convention”, not the “democrat convention.” Please learn the correct terminology.
    4) You seem to be making some kind of attempt to say that two (or more) wrongs make a right. I thought that things do not work that way.
    5) Donald Sterling hasn’t lied – he’s expressed the way he feels, multiple times. Donald Sterling hasn’t made one single attempt at changing his attitude nor has he apologized for the reprehensible comments he’s made.

    That should clear things up.

  162. stan7 says:

    I admire your honesty–I too normally vote for the lesser of two evils. However, activists didn’t win over voters in the states that adopted gay marriage by calling voters that on the fence bigots because they were not all of them bigots. It’s a drastic change in our culture that was won over by persuasion.

  163. BeccaM says:

    Nice concern trolling there, bud.

  164. Stan7 says:

    Indeed I can:
    All racists are not bigots. They can sometimes be persuaded to change their views. It won’t happen overnight but there is plenty of evidence of people honestly changing the way they see things.
    Bigots on the other hand, are rarely capable of seeing things differently–it kind of goes hand in hand with being narrow minded.
    For example, if you try to persuade people that gay marriage is better for the world there are many ways to do this. It’s not easy but I believe 19 states (and Dick Cheny) now see it your way. Calling opponents of gay marriage bigots and threating to fire them from their jobs is a hell of way to:
    1>Never get people on the fence to change their mind.
    2>Convince people on the fence to stay away from gays and the issue of gay marriage because being called names is so much fun.
    Can you guess what will happen in the other states if you make intimidation and name calling your strategy from now on?
    Hint–ask Bull Conner how his strategy worked.

  165. Hue-Man says:

    I’ve been struggling to comprehend why gay men -mostly- would want to make gay human rights a political issue. One is that it’s testosterone-fueled. Another might be to win hearts and minds of uncertain gays. (?) As far as I’m concerned, worrying about whether the leaders of the U.S. marriage equality wins were liberal or conservative is nearly 100% irrelevant; a win is a win is a win. (I was skeptical at the time of Boies and Olson but that skepticism went away as the results of their work became clear.) Except for the extreme right wing of the GOP who seem to have taken over the party machine, I don’t have any particular feelings about conservative voters, gay or straight.

    Second point, in the shocking news department: there are a lot of LGBT-haters and racists in the general population. Although their views may be condemned when spoken out loud, I firmly believe their personal and business decisions and actions reflect those biases, whether consciously or unconsciously. Often all it takes to sway a decision is the difference in approach between glass half full/half empty. Even if anti-gay animus becomes socially unacceptable, it will take much longer to eradicate private animus; SCOTUS tells us that racism doesn’t exist in the USA….

  166. BeccaM says:


  167. BeccaM says:

    No idea, but that woman has absolutely shitty taste in men if she’s going out with this paunchy, balding, aging, racist loser.

  168. BeccaM says:

    Doubt we’ll see it. Hating gay people is, we’re told, an ‘honest and deeply held’ religious belief, which gay people are required to respect, even as we’re being fired from our jobs or denied housing or have to endure ignorant bigots saying on national TV that gay people are all pedophiles.

    Racism, while unconscionably common yet, is socially unacceptable in polite society and nobody but the racists say that racism should be tolerated.

    The LGBT community has a long way to go yet, especially since we have those among us — the ConservaGays — who want to excuse anti-gay animus.

  169. BeccaM says:

    You’re right, they’re two different kinds of bigotry.

    One is anti-gay homophobic bigotry. The other is racist bigotry.

    Yet they share one very important quality in common. Can you guess what it is?

  170. uhhuhh says:

    LOL!! So you believe Obama and Hillary actually opposed marriage equality? Dumbass, they were playing you bigots for fools.

  171. TonyT says:

    How far up the right-wing propaganda machine will he be defended. Hannity, Rush, Billbo?

  172. The_Fixer says:

    “If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people to whom he gives it.”

  173. GarySFBCN says:

    1. Being opposed to same-sex marriage is bigoted. Whose daughter are you talking about?

    2. Yes, Obama was a bigot. In every election in which I’ve been able to vote, my selection has been between the lesser of two evils. And that had me voting for Obama.

    3. Yes, Hillary Clinton was bigoted in her opinion. She has changed her mind.

    4. What are you implying that Obama and Clinton are lying now or were lying before?

    If it is the latter, who cares? I called Obama a bigot back then, A lot of us did and moved to force him to act on DADT, etc.

  174. Matt Rogers says:

    In the link, the part after the last slash should be “Don_Sterling” instead of just “D.” The passage that AnthonyLook posted is in the linked article, but without the phrase about the RNC. That phrase could have been misinformation that was later removed. I used to edit Wikipedia articles, and misinformation was a recurring headache. I’ll try to post the whole link: .

  175. stan7 says:

    Being oppose to gay marriage is not the same as being opposed to your daughter being seen in public with Black people:
    Was President Obama a bigot in 2008 for opposing same sex marriage and favoring it in 2012 only after he needed money from wealthy gay donors?
    Is Hillary Clinton a bigot for being against same sex marriage (despite her personal life) until the 2012 democrat convention?
    Do some people get the privilege of lying about their stance on this issue while other are vilified?

  176. pappyvet says:

    The only thing I could find was an article at Politico about a fundraiser for Romney where Sterling is identified as ” Restore Our Future adviser Don Stirling.”

    Here’s a link if you want to check it out John.

  177. pappyvet says:

    I wonder if he could be related to Cliven Bundy.

  178. GarySFBCN says:

    That link doesn’t go anywhere and I cannot find anything linking Don Sterling to the RNC.

  179. Houndentenor says:

    I can hardly wait for the self-loathing element to chastise us for criticizing him for exercising his right to free speech. (That was sarcasm, btw.)

  180. If the audio is authentic, someone ought to ask her that.

  181. Ty Morgan says:

    I’m wondering how much money is being spent on this “girlfriend” to have her have no pride or dignity, knowing how this man feels about, well actually, HER.

  182. Wait, he was the former finance chair of the rnc?

  183. LOL I try to take the weekends somewhat off, as I tend to work 14 days during the week, but I couldn’t resist this one.

  184. GarySFBCN says:

    I’ve been waiting for the all day!

  185. Tom Thomas says:

    I look forward to the updated “Freedom to Dissent” pledge. Certainly that must be occurring… I mean, the poor guy is being hounded for his personal beliefs and political views, expressed privately. Perhaps the signers are all hard at work on the update right now…

  186. AnthonyLook says:

    Not the first time to be called to task. “August 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Sterling (former Finance Chairman for the Republican National Committee) for housing discrimination in using race as a factor in filling some of his apartment buildings. The suit charged that Sterling refused to rent to non-Koreans in the Koreatown neighborhood and to African Americans in Beverly Hills.[5] The suit alleges Sterling once said he did not like to rent to Hispanics because they “smoke, drink and just hang around the building,” and that “Black tenants smell and attract vermin.”[5] In November 2009, ESPN reported that Sterling agreed to pay a fine of $2.73 million to settle claims brought by the Justice Department and Davin Day of Newport Beach that he engaged in discriminatory rental practices against Hispanics, blacks, and families with children.”

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS