Jesse Jackson is a Clown and Needs to Stop Already
- Thread starter Archie Moses
- Start date
- Status
I think phrasing the relationship purely in contractual terms is misguided. For example, it's relatively clear that LeBron's short-term desires were pretty fundamental in shaping the Cavaliers' roster over the last few seasons all in an effort to keep him happy and his team competitive. Those short-term moves ended up harming Cleveland in the medium-to-long term. To be clear, giving Lebron that kind of control wasn't contractually mandated, but Gilbert did it anyway.
Similarly Lebron behaved extremely cavalierly (if you'll pardon the pun) with an organization that had gone out of its way and beyond its contractual duties to keep him happy. It's frankly not unreasonable to feel as if you've been slighted when you go beyond the terms of your contractual relationship and the party that benefitted from your extra efforts feels no need to perform anything beyond the confines of his narrow legal duties. What you saw from Gilbert was, in part, an emotional reaction to the unequal nature with which the parties dealt with one another. Furthermore there does appear to be some evidence that Lebron has known he was probably going to leave for years. If he knew that and allowed Cleveland to go to the ends of the earth on his behalf in order to keep him, then he frankly wasn't being straight with the organization. Add in the one-hour special and you've got a situation where one person really ****ed the other.
So yes, Jesse Jackson's entire framing of the issue has it wrong entirely.
Similarly Lebron behaved extremely cavalierly (if you'll pardon the pun) with an organization that had gone out of its way and beyond its contractual duties to keep him happy. It's frankly not unreasonable to feel as if you've been slighted when you go beyond the terms of your contractual relationship and the party that benefitted from your extra efforts feels no need to perform anything beyond the confines of his narrow legal duties. What you saw from Gilbert was, in part, an emotional reaction to the unequal nature with which the parties dealt with one another. Furthermore there does appear to be some evidence that Lebron has known he was probably going to leave for years. If he knew that and allowed Cleveland to go to the ends of the earth on his behalf in order to keep him, then he frankly wasn't being straight with the organization. Add in the one-hour special and you've got a situation where one person really ****ed the other.
So yes, Jesse Jackson's entire framing of the issue has it wrong entirely.
Hopper
Banned
Care to comment on Whitlock's assessment of Jackson's motivations, tactics, and regard for truth, Eric?
So, when you allow your current empolyer to give their best effort to keep you even though you are dubious at the possibility, but decide that ultimately it still was not good enough, you are being duplicitous? Or, is it that Gilbert was so incompetant that he didn't realize James was probably despite all the press on that through these last years?
Does his assessment have any bearing on whether Jackson is right or wrong about this occasion, or is jackson wrong simply because he is Jesse Jackson?
Hopper
Banned
Well, I spoze that depends on whether you take his assessment to be accurate, eh, Eric? As I hear it, Whitlock accuses Jackson of bein a "terrorist" who runs around startin fires and tryin to stir up racial discord, without an adequate basis, and then refuses to apologize or acknowledge that he was wrong--all for the purpose of "linin his own pockets."
Hopper
Banned
Jackson's claim is that "He sees LeBron as a runaway slave." Runaway slave, eh?
How Gilbert "sees" James is, I suppose, ultimately known only to Gilbert.
But the suggestion here from Jackson attempts to portray Gilbert as a racist slave-owner. Does he have any direct evidence of this? Of course not.
I can say any one of millions of provocative and insulting, yet unverifiable, things pertaining to another's unknowable state of mind and there will be no (direct, conclusive) evidence that I'm wrong.
And that would prove......what, exactly?
I didn't see in the quote within this thread where Jackson brought up race at all. Is every reference to slavery a racial reference? I still don't see any relevance by anything Whitlock may have said to accurate *this* assessment appears to be.
Gilbert seems to have reacted as if James were obligated in some fashion to sign for the Cavaliers. That is certainly some type of ownership mentality.
Hopper
Banned
When it's Jessie Jackson makin the reference, yeah, ya betcho *** it is.
If I loan you five bucks, I might later act like you're "obligated" to pay me back. That's not the same as claimin I now "own" you, is it?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Although Jackson didn't bring up race, do you honestly believe he wasn't comparing James (an African American) to African American slaves? Also, since when did slaves get paid millions of dollars? How is that comparison even remotely relevant?
Sounds to me that a former employer didn't like the way one of his employees left his organization, and ripped him a new fart hole. I see no problem here. If it were Mark Cuban ripping apart Dirk for going back to Germany, do you think Jackson would've said a single peep?
Of course not. I despise Jesse Jackson and everything he stands for. I hope he burns in an outhouse fire.
Of course not. I despise Jesse Jackson and everything he stands for. I hope he burns in an outhouse fire.
You are failing your own Rorshach test.
So, James owed the Clevelan Cavaliers something that would have been repaid by signing a contract? What was that?
- Status