Jump to content
Want to remove all ads? ×

Stephen Ross offered Brian Flores $100,000 for each game he lost/ Flores also suing Giants for racism

Rhg1084

By Rhg1084
in NY Jets Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

T0mShane
T0mShane

It’s so, so, so, so awesome that Brady’s look-at-me moment has been entirely blown out of the water. Homeboy has been planning this weepy retirement announcement for months and it didn’t last six hour

TheNuuFaaolaExperience
TheNuuFaaolaExperience

Wow! Other teams are a clown show. Not us. We are only an awful football team.

Jet_Engine1
Jet_Engine1

They told Daboll they would hire him prior to interviewing Flores, which indicates he was just their plausible Rooney Rule patsy.

Posted Images

Jimmy 2 Times

Jimmy 2 Times

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

The good news to all of this is, once we have a draft lottery in the NFL, we won't have to hear people bitching endlessly about winning meaningless games in December anymore. 

If we lose we get three more ping pong balls in the lottery!!!!

Why are they trying to win???!!??? 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warfish

Warfish

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Untouchable said:

You have the President of the United States set to appoint a black female SCOTUS simply based on race and gender.

Arguing for people to be appointed to positions of power based solely on the color of their skin isn’t “progressive”. It’s pandering and racist unto itself.

I would point out that whomever the President appoints will not be appointed "simply" or "solely" based on race.  They will, presumably, also be completely qualified, just like previous nominees were.

I will also point out that some of those qualified previous appointees themselves were appointed based on specific characteristics beyond their qualifications.  Like being a woman.  Or being strongly against abortion.  Or being a presumed reliable political conservative.

I'll also point out that historically, people have often been appointed for the SC for reasons beyond pure qualification, up to and including people who never argued a case or sat a day as a judge before being nominated to serve.  The SC has always been about more than just the nominees qualifications, it's always been a combination of experience and political/ideological motivations.

  • Upvote 2
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warfish

Warfish

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Untouchable said:

I’ll break some news to you…

White people typically keep the company of other white people. Black people typically keep the company of other black people. Hispanics typically keep the company of other Hispanics. Asians typically keep the company of other Asians.

It’s not “racism”.

Humans are tribal by nature. Why this is so hard for so many to grasp, I have no idea.

"Separate (by choice), But Equal" eh?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe Willie White Shoes

Joe Willie White Shoes

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Alan Hahn is going completely mental and fashioning himself as the champion of the oppressed.  

Same with DePietro and Rothenberg. LaGreca to a lesser extent but still pitching it but Michael Kay seems to be the only one taking a measured approach.   

Without taking any position on this lawsuit (I don't have the facts), I do not know why anyone listens to the clowns on NY sports talk radio.  They know very little about anything and everything they say is designed to get a rise out of the listeners so that they get more listeners and entertaining callers. I stopped listening to these bozos in 2009.  I don't care what they think or say and I'm not sure why anyone else does either.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peace Frog

Peace Frog

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I would point out that whomever the President appoints will not be appointed "simply" or "solely" based on race.  They will, presumably, also be completely qualified, just like previous nominees were.

I will also point out that some of those qualified previous appointees themselves were appointed based on specific characteristics beyond their qualifications.  Like being a woman.  Or being strongly against abortion.  Or being a presumed reliable political conservative.

I'll also point out that historically, people have often been appointed for the SC for reasons beyond pure qualification, up to and including people who never argued a case or sat a day as a judge before being nominated to serve.  The SC has always been about more than just the nominees qualifications, it's always been a combination of experience and political/ideological motivations.

While I'll agree that SCOTUS appointments have varying qualifications, over the past 20-25 years it seems to be based solely on politics (which is funny/sad because it's the branch that's supposed to be apolitical).

I think the point the prior poster was making was that the current President has said (campaigned on) and his press secretary has flat out said he will only consider appointing a black woman.

No one else need apply.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe Willie White Shoes

Joe Willie White Shoes

Posted
Posted

One think I will say is that Flores has a more compelling case than Gruden.  Flores won 19 games the past two seasons and had the Dolphins overachieving.  There is nothing that easily supports why he was fired and he should have been a top candidate for open coaching jobs ( I know he filed this lawsuit before half the jobs were filled).  Gruden was failing as a coach and his emails were horrifically offensive. The  "everybody else is doing it" defense to his actions and the "I was singled out" claims are outright losing arguments.  The emails Gruden wrote over the years make a slam dunk case for termination of employment whether others wrote similar emails or not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tranquilo

Tranquilo

Posted
Posted
Just now, Peace Frog said:

While I'll agree that SCOTUS appointments have varying qualifications, over the past 20-25 years it seems to be based solely on politics (which is funny/sad because it's the branch that's supposed to be apolitical).

I think the point the prior poster was making was that the current President has said (campaigned on) and his press secretary has flat out said he will only consider appointing a black woman.

No one else need apply.  

 

Just like Trump. Just like Reagan. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peace Frog

Peace Frog

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Without taking any position on this lawsuit (I don't have the facts), I do not know why anyone listens to the clowns on NY sports talk radio.  They know very little about anything and everything they say is designed to get a rise out of the listeners so that they get more listeners and entertaining callers. I stopped listening to these bozos in 2009.  I don't care what they think or say and I'm not sure why anyone else does either.  

Been working from home since Covid, sometimes I listen to Spotify/Pandora but during football season I like hearing NFL talk.  Not this crap though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Untouchable

Untouchable

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Warfish said:

"Separate (by choice), But Equal" eh?

If that offends you, so be it. But it’s the fact of human nature.

Different races by and large have their own cultural differences and varying interests.

Doesn’t mean that opposite races can’t interact and socialize with each other. But yeah, for the most part, people prefer to be with their own.

But now white yuppies who type on their MacBooks at the local Starbucks enjoy pretending that they regularly fraternize with minorities all for likes on Twitter.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe Willie White Shoes

Joe Willie White Shoes

Posted
Posted
Just now, Peace Frog said:

While I'll agree that SCOTUS appointments have varying qualifications, over the past 20-25 years it seems to be based solely on politics (which is funny/sad because it's the branch that's supposed to be apolitical).

I think the point the prior poster was making was that the current President has said (campaigned on) and his press secretary has flat out said he will only consider appointing a black woman.

No one else need apply.  

 

And Reagan did the same thing in the 1980s with Sandra Day O'Connor and Trump a little over a year ago with Amy Coney Barrett.  Both said they would name a woman.  This faux outrage towards Biden's statements and desires are both purely political and incredibly hypocritical, particularly when you consider how the GOP has handled Supreme Court appointments in the past 6 years - from the Garland/Gorsuch fiasco through to the accelerated appointment and confirmation of Barrett.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe Willie White Shoes

Joe Willie White Shoes

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Untouchable said:

If that offends you, so be it. But it’s the fact of human nature.

Different races by and large have their own cultural differences and varying interests.

Doesn’t mean that opposite races can’t interact and socialize with each other. But yeah, for the most part, people prefer to be with their own.

But now white yuppies who type on their MacBooks at the local Starbucks enjoy to pretend that they regularly fraternize with minorities all for likes on Twitter.

It's fine to socialize with whoever you choose, but the theory is that if you carry that preference into the hiring process, minorities will never be hired.  And when there is some "course correction" like we see on college campuses with affirmative action,  you get lawsuits challenging that like the case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this term.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DetroitRed

DetroitRed

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

And Reagan did the same thing in the 1980s with Sandra Day O'Connor and Trump a little over a year ago with Amy Coney Barrett.  Both said they would name a woman.  This faux outrage towards Biden's statements and desires are both purely political and incredibly hypocritical, particularly when you consider how the GOP has handled Supreme Court appointments in the past 6 years - from the Garland/Gorsuch fiasco through to the accelerated appointment and confirmation of Barrett.

And Reagan and Trump should not have done it either.  But they are going to dump the thread because of this. So let’s stay on topic 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peace Frog

Peace Frog

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

And Reagan did the same thing in the 1980s with Sandra Day O'Connor and Trump a little over a year ago with Amy Coney Barrett.  Both said they would name a woman.  This faux outrage towards Biden's statements and desires are both purely political and incredibly hypocritical, particularly when you consider how the GOP has handled Supreme Court appointments in the past 6 years - from the Garland/Gorsuch fiasco through to the accelerated appointment and confirmation of Barrett.

I have conceded that SCOTUS appointments are politically motivated.  Clearly. Nothing hypocritical about that. The two party system demands it.  Left v right, conservative v liberal.  Been going on forever.   

And this is not faux outrage.  I was clarifying what another poster said.  

Having said that, no President has ever said they would only consider a white candidate. 

This is a discussion about racism, not sexism.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matt39

Matt39

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Try Sirius XM - both the NFL and Fantasy football stations blow away NY sports talk radio.  

The NFL station is pretty bad, IMO. The guy who used to work for the Jets is just a shill for the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Untouchable

Untouchable

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

It's fine to socialize with whoever you choose, but the theory is that if you carry that preference into the hiring process, minorities will never be hired.  And when there is some "course correction" like we see on college campuses with affirmative action,  you get lawsuits challenging that like the case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this term.  

Sure they would

Guys like Denny Green, Tony Dungy, Herm Edwards, etc were being hired as HC’s before the Rooney Rule was put into effect.

If anything, it’s a token rule that should piss off minorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tranquilo

Tranquilo

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Peace Frog said:

It's what this dude's been doing the whole thread.  Either does not undertand what is being dicsussed or disagrees with it so he calls people racist.

Typical.  

 

You’re clearly white because you didn’t notice that Trump and Reagan did the same thing. Don’t be a snowflake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tranquilo

Tranquilo

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

I have conceded that SCOTUS appointments are politically motivated.  Clearly. Nothing hypocritical about that. The two party system demands it.  Left v right, conservative v liberal.  Been going on forever.   

And this is not faux outrage.  I was clarifying what another poster said.  

Having said that, no President has ever said they would only consider a white candidate. 

This is a discussion about racism, not sexism.  

You think a president has to say they’re considering a white person? It’s been the default since this country’s inception. You think Trump ever considered a black person seriously? Lolol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peace Frog

Peace Frog

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

 

 

Might be time to lock this one up

I've assiduously tried NOT to make this political.  Dude can't help himself.

We can discuss this issue without making it political.  My mention of the current President was not a political statement--I hope he picks the best SCOTUS candidate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company

Site Sponsor

MetLife Stadium Tailgate

NY Jets Podcast

NY Jets Podcast

DMCA Page

  • -- DMCA Page
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...