Donald Sterling

[Emperor Roland]

Right now, anyone who follows the news religiously, should know that man's name.  For those that do not, i will try to give you the situation as short and sweet as i can.

 

Mr. Sterling is (at least for now) The owner of the LA Clippers Basketball team.  At the time of this post he is in a fight with the National Basketball Association (NBA) over whether or not he should be able to retain the ownership of the team that he has owned for the last 35 years.  Why is the NBA trying to strip him of his ownership?

 

a recording of a private conversation between himself and one of his employees has surfaced, a conversation in which Mr. Sterling is heard saying some pretty disturbingly racist remarks.   i do not think that they need to be repeated here, but, if you have not heard about it, i will say that they are pretty vile. 

 

So, here comes my question.  Should someone be able to be stripped of their personal property, because of something they say? 

 

I understand in this case, Mr. Sterling has signed agreements with the other owners, and the NBA where he knows he can be stripped of his ownership.  so in all honesty, i am not too concerned about his loosing the team.  he knew what he was getting into when he bought the team.  however, this is simply the latest example of something i find much more disturbing. 

 

There is a trend lately to where people are loosing their jobs, being forced to resign form their positions, and generally being crucified if they hold an unpopular belief.  Is this right?

 

What ever happened to people being able to hold their own opinions, and to have the freedom to express those beliefs without having their lives and livelihoods put at risk?  is not one of the founding principles of this country the freedom of speech?

 

Yes there are limitations to it, you can not say something that will put others in danger, such as the common example of yelling fire in a crowded theater.  we all know those, but, tell me.  haven't we fought wars, and had our brave men and women die so that we had that right?

 

A bit of personal information about myself.  I am a member of a group called the Patriot Guard Riders.  Those that have heard of them before know that we have a special sort of hatred for the Westboro Baptist Church.  Personally i find their views and their actions beyond reprehensible.  BUT!!!!  They have the right to do what they do, and, as much as i despise that view, i will fight for their right to be able to have it, and express it.  anything else is simple contrary to the principles that this country was founded on.

 

Then we have the religious Right.  those that like to have the hell fire and brimstone sermons about how evil us gays are, and all that other bullshit.  should they be silenced, simply because we do not like what they say?  NO!  They have the same right to spew their gay hating message, as i do to say they are wrong.  The only time speech should be controlled is when it presents a danger to someone else.  and i do not mean simply hurting someone's feelings. 

 

Now, to bring this all into a nice neat little circle, i have covered more then a few topics here, but it all comes down to one thing.  Freedom of Speech.  in my opinion the entire notion of being Politically correct has gone way too far in this nation.  This train of thought that we can not say something that might offend someone else... well sorry, i could say 'good morning' to some of these people, and i could offend them.  guess what, if you are offended by something that someone else says, tell them about it, march in the streets, protest, but by God they have the RIGHT to hold what ever opinion they want. 

 

(So... lets see how much fun this topic has.  I do encourage everyone to participate, even if it is to tell me how wrong i am.  hell... i would prefer those over the ones that agree with me.  lol.  just remember to keep things civil)

[Rilbur]

In 99.9% of cases, I'd agree with your position (however reluctantly).  Donald Sterling is the exception -- and as you noted, even you concede he's a good exception.

 

Since you didn't cover it, I'm going to go ahead and explain exactly why people in some positions can and should be stripped of 'property'.

 

Owning a basketball team doesn't simply imply ownership of that team.  The issue lies in the fact that owning one team means nothing without the backing of an entire framework of support, including other teams.  The end result is that by owning one team, you have an informal partial ownership of the entire network.  You rely on them, and they in turn rely on you.  Damage to one component of that network is damage to the entire network.  Imagine, just as an example, if people began to boycott Clippers games.  That wouldn't just damage the Clippers (and their owner).  It would damage every team scheduled to play them!  It would damage the sport as a whole.

 

And therefore, the agreements Mr. Sterling has signed, allowing him to be stripped of his property.

 

And, therefore, the reason your premise is fundamentally flawed, good sir.

 

He isn't being stripped of property because he's saying something unpopular.  He's being stripped of property because he's saying things that can damage other people.

[ken barber]

Roland,

In most cases I would agree with you, however as you stated in your post this is an exception as would all franchise type business. Use fast food does Mcdonalds have the right terminate a franchise if the owner was openly racist. Yes they do as this would tarnish every other franchise owner and the Corporation as a whole. In the Case of Donald Sterling his comments tarnish the reputation of the whole NBA. 

 

Almost everyone who works for a corporation or has a stake in it has a code of conduct that you're expected to follow.  BTW thank you for volunteering in the Patriot Guard Riders, being a veteran and from a family of veterans that means a lot to me.

 

But you are also right that an individual as the right to express their opinion or belief ie. the WBC. (I dont even like spelling their name out). However their are consequences when you express your belief or opinion in a manner that attack another person or group.

 

Just as in this forum you and the moderators have ask and honestly warned us about attacking people directly. There is a huge difference between expressing your opinion about racial, cultural, or social economic differences than saying all gay people should die (This is not my opinion).

 

I believe in protecting the freedom of expression at all cost except at the cost of someone or groups dignity or safety.

 

That is why I think things like flag burning should not be illegal. I would never do it I honor and cherish the symbol of our country and it brings me to tears to see someone burn our flag but they have the right its their expression. 

 

If I went to my office and told everyone there that all the Jewish people in our office (there are a lot) don't deserve their jobs because they are cheap and mean(Again not how I feel just making a point) I would get fired. Rightfully so. However if I was sitting in my home or in my back yard drinking with friends and said the same thing there are no repercussions except alienating myself from my friends. My freedom of speech is intact. 

 

There is a time and place for everything. The office or workplace is not the place to express your personal opinions you are paid to do a specific job not debate politics. If the Donald Sterling recorded conversation had been between him and his mother than this argument would completely different. Now I know this woman was a "girlfriend" but she was also an employee. 

[Anjobranco]

I am gay and a strong believer, of my rights. The right of not be discriminate in any kind of form or manner.

So i would be an hypocrite if i would denied the same for everybody else.

Namely the right to be an asshole, homophobic, racist or xenophobic.

I do not agree that should be grounds to lose your property, business, whatever.

 

In the case of Mr. Sterling, i think there are tow main reason for him to be stripped of property.

 

1. He signed a contract, so if he breach that contract, he should suffer the legal consequences of that act.

 

2. I think it is the most influential on this case, it is the so called "Political Correct" and the "Guilt by association", so the only solution for them not being call racist also it is to stripped him. 

 

Some background on me:

 

I do not consider myself racist, and i have date a black guy, but i do not like them, let me try to explain.

I do not have problems whit blacks as a race or people, but the problem for me it is the use and abuse of "racist" problem in it self.

Here the people want to be so "politic correct" that thinks escalate to ridiculous situations

 

OK examples:

 

If some black guys beat a white guy it is a normal brawl

If some white guys beat a black guy it is racism, and you will have an huge media frenzy about racism and so on.

 

If some white guy is caught steeling and resists arrest and get banged a little, it is "he got what he deserve"

If some black guy is caught steeling and resists arrest and get banged a little, it is racism police violence, and you get the media circus

 

You can not make accusatory comments about black people whit out being call racist, and racism become the excuse for all things regarding them.

 

[GayActivist]

Donald Sterling seems to be a product of his generation, thankfully not reflective of all from his generation. The man is entitled to his opinions and he is free to express them. No one seems to have mentioned the fact that the conversation was recorded without his knowledge, or at least the is the inference. Thus his privacy was violated if true and thus the person responsible should be charged for breaking the law. In California, it is illegal to record someone without their permission. CA residents correct me if I am in error on that.

 

That part not withstanding, his views end up in the public sphere and it had an impact, on the Clippers organizations, it's players, the NBA and other team owners. The NBA and the teams are all a business and the owners knowingly signed and agreed to the NBA constitution, which states that if 2/3 of the owners agree another owner can be stripped of his or her team.

 

A business creates and cultivates an image and tend to guard it as if it were a golden egg. So when the players got riled up, the fans got riled up and sponsors started to pull out. The message was clear, Donald Sterling and his views, now public, was hurting the team and the NBA as a whole, so they moved to take action against him and rightfully so.

 

I would argue that with freedom of speech comes a certain responsibility and acceptance that what you say does not make you immune from consequences. Your speech, unless it results in harm or puts people at risk, can not be denied you by the government. It does not mean you are immune from people around you taking you to task for what you said. Be that in the form of calling the person out, to not doing business with them and the like.

 

I would like to go a slightly different track here. Religious leaders, some not all mind you, are now going on that the gay Nazi machine is going to cause them to be punished for speaking their minds, their beliefs.

 

Bullshit. Speak and preach what ever the hell you want too. The problem is when you step beyond speech and into action that directly denies me and my brothers and sisters the basic rights that you take for granted. We do not care what you think or believe about us. If that is all that you did, we would not even notice you and all would be dandy and you would not be screaming that you are being persecuted for your beliefs. Instead some of them have gone out of their way to single us out and move to deny us the same basic human rights that everyone else has and in some cases, Scott Lively, want to criminalize homosexuality and put us all in jail and or out right kill us.

[ken barber]

Anjo,

 

I would like to comment on the last part of your post 

 

If some black guys beat a white guy it is a normal brawl

If some white guys beat a black guy it is racism, and you will have an huge media frenzy about racism and so on.

If some white guy is caught steeling and resists arrest and get banged a little, it is "he got what he deserve"

If some black guy is caught steeling and resists arrest and get banged a little, it is racism police violence, and you get the media circus

You can not make accusatory comments about black people whit out being call racist, and racism become the excuse for all things regarding them.

 

A couple of things are missing in those statements

If a Black man (Or woman) beats a white man (Or woman) because he or she is White its racism.

If a White man/Woman beats a Black man/woman because he or she is black its racism,

 

If you make accusatory comments about black people in a generalized form because they are black then yes it is racism.

 

I am sure most of us here are old enough to remember comment like "Oh I heard Mr Jones down the block is gay make sure the kids stay away from him so he doesn't try to do anything to them."

We gays have been victims of the very same type of stereotyping ourselves. (BTW that is an actual comment I heard an adult make when I was fifteen and starting to deal with my sexuality.I changed the name of the neighbor though)

 

This type of stereotyping and generalizing is inherently dangerous to society as a whole and individuals. 

 

Someone is not inherently bad because of the color of thier skin, sexuality, religion, nationality, sex, or ethnic origins. I am not saying people should be not be criticized or called to task for their actions but the color of their skin has nothing to do with it. Their sexuality has nothing to do with it. I hear all the time. "Oh my god Ken your sister  has help pick your clothes for you because you have no style you are such a bad gay guy." Do you know insulting this is. My sexuality has nothing to do with it. These people don't see me at work with my tailored suits, French cuff shirts with cuff links that match my tie that has the perfect combination of colors to compliment and contrast with the shirt. And I chose these, my style is focused on my my work clothes, I couldn't be bother by casual everyday wear, but my sister does so she picks clothes for me and tells me when I throw something on that looks ridiculous. 

 

We don't know these people and yet we judge them based on what others in a group that is similiar has done. 

 

I get very heated about racism and bigotry especially when talking to gay people. We should be the ones helping to fight racism and bigotry of any kind not judging .Yet most gay men I speak to are extremely judgemental.  Even amongst ourselves. I for one refuse to judge someone based on outward appearance or by a general classification. I will judge you on your actions period.

[Emperor Roland]

I agree with everything you said, however, there have been plenty of times were someone's personal conversations were recorded, aired and then the person had severe negative effects due to it.  lets take Dog the Bounty hunter, and Martha Stewart.  the first case, he was talking to his son, if i remember correctly, and in the second case it was YEARS after the fact. 

 

Yet both of them were publicly humiliated, and fired.  yes, i agree that their employers were in their rights to do so, but my God, someone saying something that people don't like gives others the right to do what ever they can to destroy that person.  what ever happened to live and let live. 

 

i guess what i am getting at is something that is much more disturbing then just what these cases show.  it is a trend of complete intolerance for someone who has a different point of view.  something that i have noticed is extremely bad on both extreme sides of the political spectrum, but for now, it seems that the extreme left has the biggest mouth piece. 

 

Now to disagree withe Ken a bit.... To have someone say that all gay people should die.  guess what.  i disagree with you.  as long as he is not actively trying to kill people, or incite others to do so, then that is within that person's rights to say.  words and thoughts are NOT the same as intent, and action.  intent and action we can regulate with law.  words and thoughts must NEVER be restricted.

 

what right does anyone have, to tell someone else that they are not allowed to say what they believe... what right do people have to publicly humiliate someone, simply because they hold a belief that is different from theirs?

 

And lets just throw one more thing in here, since we are talking about free speech.  whats up with people getting dis invited, or being forced to reject the opportunity to give a commencement address, simply because a small group of college students don't like them.  i mean come on people, grow up already.  if you don't like the person, that doesn't mean that you have the right to screw it up for everyone else. 

 

well i guess that's enough for now.  I just would like to invite others to participate as well.  I see lots of people reading, but only a few commenting.  go ahead, lets hear what you have to say

[ken barber]

Roland,

I do have to point out that you actually make my argument in your last comment: what right do people have to publicly humiliate someone, simply because they hold a belief that is different from theirs?

If someone "intentionally" makes a comment that publicly humiliates or belittles a person or group of people then they are infringing on the basic rights of that person.

 

Today we call it bullying 

[Anjobranco]

I think i did not explain myself very well

 

f some black guys beat a white guy it is a normal brawl

If some white guys beat a black guy it is racism, and you will have an huge media frenzy about racism and so on.

If some white guy is caught steeling and resists arrest and get banged a little, it is "he got what he deserve"

If some black guy is caught steeling and resists arrest and get banged a little, it is racism police violence, and you get the media circus

You can not make accusatory comments about black people whit out being call racist, and racism become the excuse for all things regarding them.

 

A couple of things are missing in those statements

If a Black man (Or woman) beats a white man (Or woman) because he or she is White its racism.

If a White man/Woman beats a Black man/woman because he or she is black its racism,

 

When i made those statements, i was just explaining what it is current believed and implement by the cultural society where i live.

 

Let me try to explain the part of the accusatory comments.

 

I as not speaking about accusations because they are black, and the phrase should be:

 

You can not make remarks to black people whit out being call racist, and racism become the excuse for all things regarding them.

 

"a man robbed a shop and shot at the police, the police fires back and kills him" its not normal?

 

but if the man is black the media and the black comunity will use that to call racism

 

"you are trying to sleep at night and a couple of drunk guys it is making so much noise on the street you cam sleep, you go to the windows and ask them to go away and make less noise. if not you will call the cops" normal no?

 

but if they are black they will call you racist and the media and the black community will use that to call racism

 

because people and society are so afraid of the term racist that they react to the extreme and they create  an double standards 

 

probably i did not explain it correctly again, but its hard to explain to same one that never live in this country, because it is a case cultural misconceptions, the society where a live overcompensates because of mistakes of the past, and people take advantage of that.

 

[Emperor Roland]

Roland,

I do have to point out that you actually make my argument in your last comment: what right do people have to publicly humiliate someone, simply because they hold a belief that is different from theirs?

If someone "intentionally" makes a comment that publicly humiliates or belittles a person or group of people then they are infringing on the basic rights of that person.

 

Today we call it bullying 

 

No Ken, and this is where we disagree.  if no one was ever allowed to say anything that offended someone else, we would be in a very silent world.  Does it hurt me for someone to call me fat?  no, why should it?  I am, I know it, and i accept it.  Does it hurt if someone calls me a fag?  nope.  because for me to be offended by what someone else says, means that i am insecure about myself.  it means that i am giving them the power to make me feel less about myself.  i simply choose not to give those people that kind of power.

 

This is part of the problem that, I personally, see with the way of things in this world.  Instead of trying to stop bullying, verbal, by the way, not physical, although this works for that as well.  Instead of trying to stop something that we will NEVER be able to, we should teach people how to deal with it.  because guess what.  the world ain't as pretty and nice as people like to think.  Bullying is essential to growing up, to learning how to deal with adversity, and most importantly how to become strong enough to deal with the shit that life throws at someone.  BTW.. before anyone says that i obviously do not know what it is like to be bullied, lets just say i have always been fat, i am a geek, and yes... i was actually the president of not only the chess club, but captain of the bowling team!  I was target number one!!!  lol.  and i would not have changed it for anything. 

 

In a nut shell, the problem i see with today's youth is that they are way to protected against the bad things in life that when they grow up and enter the 'real world' they have no clue how to handle things that are not given to them.  they are still expecting the little trophy for coming in last place.  well in real life you get nothing for finishing in last.  some of the most successful people in the world had to claw and scrap to get what they have, and now they are being demonized for being successful.  The "great American Dream"  has become a crime, simply because people don't think they should have to work to get ahead.  they have been taught that they will be protected, and if something goes wrong they will have someone to fall back on, so they don't hit the bottom.  Well what happens when Mommy and Daddy aren't there to cushion your fall?  Well this day and age, the Government is there.  and THAT is what is destroying what our fore fathers built.  Now we live in a culture where people EXPECT to get something for nothing, instead of learning early on in life that if they want something they had better work for it

[Emperor Roland]

Anjo... it is the same here.  In this country, Racism has become a multibillion dollar industry.  i will be more than happy to go into more details at another time, but it is late, so i will just throw this statement out there.  In my opinion... the biggest racists in this country go by the names of Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. 

 

If anyone needs a good example of this, just look at the Duke Lacrosse Team.  If you are not familiar with it, i am sure goggle still has more then enough information about it. 

 

Am i a racist?  Not at all, i have some close friends who happen to have darker skin color.  But if i were to say one negative thing to a black person, then i am a racist.  and that is as bad as someone calling you a child molester.  it does not matter if it's true or not.  you are guilty simply because someone said you are, and no matter what proof you offer up, there is nothing that can remove that taint form you.  your life is ruined. 

[Rilbur]

The man is entitled to his opinions and he is free to express them. No one seems to have mentioned the fact that the conversation was recorded without his knowledge, or at least the is the inference. Thus his privacy was violated if true and thus the person responsible should be charged for breaking the law. In California, it is illegal to record someone without their permission. CA residents correct me if I am in error on that.

Regardless of whether or not the conversation was made illegally or not, Sterling had no right to express those opinions.  Or rather, yes, he has every right to express them, but that doesn't mean he is free from consequences.

 

By buying the team, he voluntarily accepted certain restrictions to his freedoms.  The penalty for violating those restrictions is that he's stripped over ownership.  The important concept there is 'voluntarily'.  He chose to allow certain freedoms to be curtailed.  You can't separate that out from the rest of the situation, even by adding in irrelevancies of whether he knew he was being recorded or not.

[Zach Caldwell]

Rilbur, I do not believe GayActivist was saying that just because Sterling did not know that he was being recorded, that he should have gotten a free pass.

 

His point I think is that the man was speaking, in what he thought was the privacy of his home and thus did not think his views would find their way into the public sphere as it did. But regardless of how it got to the public sphere, Sterling has to face the consequences as laid out under the NBA constitution.

[Rilbur]

His point I think is that the man was speaking, in what he thought was the privacy of his home and thus did not think his views would find their way into the public sphere as it did. 

Figures of public interest -- and however much I detest the over-importance of sports, at the end of the day team owners count -- know full well that they're never in private.  Or at least, by now they should all know that.

[Mary]

A number of themes were brought up in this thread, but one basic one prevails.  'You've Got To Be Carefully Taught' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHKzn8aHyXg 

 

I grew up with a father a little older than Mr. Stirling. It was beaten into him by his extremely Christian conservative mother to hate everyone that was not upperclass, white and 'our kind of people'.  His service in WWII, his breaking away from the Christian Church, started his maturing, but as I was growing up in our home, I heard all the terms used by Mr. Stirling and many more.  By the end of my father's life, he had moved beyond the hatred he had been taught. Maybe one day Mr. Stirling will be able to.  Maybe this situation will be a catalyst for him.  Maybe.

 

Thankfully, my mother believed people were to be accepted by their actions and loved. During my own military career, I saw many forms of bigotry and hatred, and I also saw it change over the decades.  

 

When I put on the uniform of the United States Air Force, I accepted a Code of Conduct that I would live by.  When I retired and went to work for a corporation, they expected a certain standard of conduct from me for my employment.  Failure to meet the standards in either situation had ramifications, either in the military justice system or unemployment.

 

I am not privy to Mr. Stirling's agreement with the NBA.  But if there was a similar clause, then it is up to whomever to decide if the seriousness of the situation warrants action and what that action will take.  

 

If I lived in Los Angeles or had pay-for-view TV and previously watched the Clipper's games, it might be sufficient that I elect to stop watching the games.  Same as I choose not to buy food at certain fast food joints that are known to discriminate.

 

But, I stand by a person's right to say what they want, think what they want, write what they want and worship as they wish.  And equally, I will defend against people in power forcing others to follow their points of views, deny them access to medical care, or marginalize any group.

[Str8mayb]

WOW!  This case has so many interesting twists and turns.  Did MM set it up??  No, probably not.

 

One issue is the circumstances that the recording was made.  If it was made in violation of the law, legal action is called for.

 

However once the 'cat is out of the bag' so to speak, what to do.  The attitudes and beliefs expressed are in violation of his ownership agreement and the remedy is clear.  He must sell the team.

 

Although I personally find that tape hard to listen too, it is his right to feel that way and to express that opinion as long as he is willing to 'pay the price.'

 

Any of us that deal with the public know that you must present a certain 'face' to get along.  I doctor in the inner city might be a racist but he cannot show that in his clinic and expect to be a success. 

 

Also we need to consider his age.  There are certain aging conditions that can cause a shift in personality (good and bad, by the way)  Also some terms that we find offensive didn't use to be.  An example is my own parents.  They used the term nigger but to them it was like we say black or afro-American (a term I find very offensive).  My father demonstrated many times that he was far form a racist but mu kids got upset when they heard him use the term.  Times change and so do the meaning of words.  Another example, to my parents 'gay' meant happy.  Isn't that nice?  To most of us gay means something totally different.  And if you're English a fag is something you smoke.

 

Hmmm, I seem to have wandered off point.  Oh. well.  I'll retreat to my castle and raise the draw bridge.

[Zach Caldwell]

Here is an article on freedom of speech with regards to Donald Sterling and Ronald Copeland. If you have been watching the news, Copeland is, or was now, the Police Commissioner for a small New Hampshire town, who used the N-word, in regards to President Obama, in a public restaurant and was overheard.

 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2014/05/20/donald-sterling-robert-copeland-and-the-costs-of-free-speech

[Anjobranco]

I  want to say tow things here.

 

First i got the feeling that some of you got the impression that i am racist because of some comments i made.

So to clear thinks up, i am not racist, i have black friends and even date one.

What i try to say about racism is that i am very tier of some people white or black, trying to justify illegal acts and actions on the bases of racism.

If you do the deed you pay the price, do not call the police officer that arrests you for stealing racist just because you are from a different race.

 

Second.

Freedom of speech

 

 

Article 37. º 

Freedom of expression and information 

 

1. Everyone has the right to freely express and publicize his thoughts by words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform, to inform and be informed without hindrance or discrimination. 

 

2. The exercise of these rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship. 

 

3. Offences committed in the exercise of these rights shall be subject to general principles of criminal law or illicit offenses; respectively and their appraisal of the jurisdiction of courts or administrative entity independent under the law. 

 

4. The all persons, natural or legal persons is ensured in terms of equity and efficiency, the right of reply and rectification, as well as the right to compensation for damages suffered.

 

 

But that will not give them the right to violate another of the articles of the constitution

 

Article 25 . º

Right to personal integrity

 

 1 . The moral and physical integrity of persons is inviolable .

 

2 . Nobody may be subjected to torture or to treatment or cruel, degrading or inhuman .

 

 

 

Article 26 . º

Other personal rights

 

 1 . Everyone is recognized rights to personal identity , personality development , civil capacity, citizenship , good name and reputation , the image , the word, the privacy of private and family life and the legal protection all forms of discrimination .

 

2 . A law shall establish effective guarantees against the unfair and , contrary to human dignity or use of information concerning individuals and families .

 

3 . The law shall guarantee the personal dignity and genetic identity of human beings , particularly in the creation , development and use of technologies and scientific experimentation.

 

4 . Deprivation of citizenship and restrictions on civil capacity only be made in cases and as provided by law, and not on political grounds .

[Zach Caldwell]

Anjo, I do not believe you are a racists, nor do I think anyone here believes that. I did not read anything that would suggest or imply that you were. If that was an impression you got from any of the posts, then I am sorry. The issue, if there is one, may well be in cultural differences and how we express those differences which might lead one side to perceive something other than what was actually intended by a member.

 

Your views and thoughts are most welcome, insightful and very much appreciated. Thank you for taking time to engage in the conversations and I look forward to more of your insights.

[ken barber]

Anjo,

I certainly hope my posts did not make you think I thought you were a racist. Not the case and if so I sincerely apologize. Please understand that I get very heated during these discussions and sometimes don't think clearly when I am replying. I speak from the heart.  I have enjoyed the discourse and dialogue here, it rare to be able to have intelligent conversations about the major issues  and see differing perspectives with out someone trying to incite the others or attacking someone personally. Thank you for your input and insight

 

Ken B