Jump to content

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


Rhg1084
 Share

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Untouchable said:

There are now 6 black GM’s in the NFL.

There have been numerous black HC’s hired in the NFL over the last 30 years.

Brian Flores was being interviewed by nearly every team with an opening at HC days after being fired. He was considered a finalist for multiple of them.

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.

 

"solely?" So much for your credibility. Let's wait and see who is nominated and then decide if her credentials meet the standards of the court while "also" fulfilling a campaign promise to break a longstanding barrier. Every appointment to the Supreme Court is pandering to someone's special interests. That's as old as the court itself. 

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

3 minutes 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.  

 

Tell us how Reagan and Trump seriously considered all races, plz 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, if you don't have a problem with Reagan saying he was going to appoint a woman, or Trump saying he was going to appoint a woman, you shouldn't have a problem with Biden saying he is going to appoint a black woman.

If you do have a problem with Biden, but not Trump or Reagan, then, to me, it's one of two things.  Either, your political leanings have far too much control over your reasoning and opinions...or...you have a problem with his choice of race.

Either way, it's not a good look.

  • Upvote 3
  • Thumb Down 1
  • Post of the Week 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tranquilo said:

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

Please find me a quote that they would only consider a white candidate.

Hahahahahaaaa snowflake.  Another ad hominem when you don't understand what's being discussed.  

  • Sad 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IndianaJet said:

I mean, if you don't have a problem with Regan saying he was going to appoint a woman, or Trump saying he was going to appoint a woman, you shouldn't have a problem with Biden saying he is going to appoint a black woman.

If you do have a problem with Biden, but not Trump or Regan, then, it me, it's one of two things.  Either, your political leanings have far too much control over your reasoning and opinions...or...you have a problem with his choice of race.

Either way, it's not a good look.

Again, nothing to do with sexism. This was a racism discussion.  Wasn't even my point-just clarifying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Peace Frog said:

Please find me a quote that they would only consider a white candidate.

Hahahahahaaaa snowflake.  Another ad hominem when you don't understand what's being discussed.  

Why would they have to say white when it’s already assumed and they delivered?

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

"solely?" So much for your credibility. Let's wait and see who is nominated and then decide if her credentials meet the standards of the court while "also" fulfilling a campaign promise to break a longstanding barrier. Every appointment to the Supreme Court is pandering to someone's special interests. That's as old as the court itself. 

Maybe you’re correct.  But, I’m trying to figure out who was being pandered to with Thomas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason for Affirmative Action is the assumption based on past and current practices that there’s going to be discrimination. The reason for the Rooney Rule. Now if you believe there’s an even and fair playing field maybe you’re against it and maybe you’re blind. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tranquilo said:

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.

Show me the quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tranquilo said:

Hahaha yes. Lol keep covering your white naive ears. 

 

Just now, Tranquilo said:

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

So what he is white?  This is divisive.  He can't have a valid opinion because of his skin color?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Tranquilo said:

It's easy to measure metrics on the field. How do you measure leadership positions?

Gase was 23-25  with one playoff and considered the worst hire ever.  Stephen A implied over and over him getting another chance was racism.  Flores was 24-25 with no playoff.  He is hailed as the next Lomabardi and a martyr.  Do we think the relationship with his GM (also black) could have been an issue in this?  

Heck to me a real red flag here is he didn’t have the decency to let Nellichexl know he was going to use this text .  That is his mentor. That is the guy he owes his entire career to.  You don’t think that may be a red flag on leadership?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BallinPB said:

 

So what he is white?  This is divisive.  He can't have a valid opinion because of his skin color?  

He only sees color when Biden says black Supreme Court justice but ignores it when Trump and Reagan only chose white justices 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

The only reason for Affirmative Action is the assumption based on past and current practices that there’s going to be discrimination. The reason for the Rooney Rule. Now if you believe there’s an even and fair playing field maybe you’re against it and maybe you’re blind. 

Should there be affirmative action for whites in the nba?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tranquilo said:

He only sees color when Biden says black Supreme Court justice but ignores it when Trump and Reagan only chose white justices 

You left our bush and Clarence Thomas?  And now the court is going to be made up over 20% black.  That is too much and not a representation of society, right? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

The only reason for Affirmative Action is the assumption based on past and current practices that there’s going to be discrimination. The reason for the Rooney Rule. Now if you believe there’s an even and fair playing field maybe you’re against it and maybe you’re blind. 

There will never be an even playing field. There really is no such thing. So we have to get past that as a society 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why the Belichick text is controversial btw?  Is the idea that he had inside knowledge of who the Giants hired and he thought he was texting Daboll?

Because the way I see this, he saw that a guy named Brian was offered the Giants job and he got confused, thinking it was Brian Flores who got the offer (and then he texted Flores).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tranquilo said:

He only sees color when Biden says black Supreme Court justice but ignores it when Trump and Reagan only chose white justices 

There is a difference when saying you're only going to consider black supreme court justice than just picking one.  

Biden shouldn't have said anything and just picked one but now you have the prospect of someone more qualified being shut out because they don't fit that certain identity.    

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BallinPB said:

There is a difference when saying you're only going to consider black supreme court justice than just picking one.  

Biden shouldn't have said anything and just picked one but now you have the prospect of someone more qualified being shut out because they don't fit that certain identity.    

Why can’t she be more qualified? Because he said that? So the best possible SC justice can’t be a black woman?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tranquilo said:

Why can’t she be more qualified? Because he said that? So the best possible SC justice can’t be a black woman?

I didnt say she can't but he just shut out a bunch of people based on identity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 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.

Lol what? No way. Up until this point every Supreme Court nomination has been given to the singular most qualified member of the legal profession completely irrespective of race, gender, creed, or political affiliation. Just so happens that 108 of those 115 times, the winner of that year’s lawyer skills competition was a white man whose politics lined up with the current presidents’. Luck of the draw.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tranquilo said:

You could tell which people would’ve hated MLK in the 60s. Polls showed the majority of people didn’t like him at one point. 

Disagree.  Most of the wokenes that exists now would make mlk roll over in his grave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 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).

Absolutely. 

But I would opine that many folks simply aren't aware of how deeply, and at times divisively, political many past nominations were as well.

20 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

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.

Which is 100% his right.  There is no Rooney rule in our Constitution for Supreme Court nominations. 

Same as he (likely) will only nominate a political liberal, and a justice who believes in a liberal judicial philosophy and supports abortion rights, legally speaking.  And the Senate has a right to vote for or against for any reason they choose and/or wish to say.

There have been 115 SC justices in our history so far, and only 5 have been women, for example.  One of those five, Coney-Barrett, was chosen from a very similar trait-based limited-nominee pool, in that case a political decision to drive support from conservative, anti-abortion women voters.  Was that nomination equally a problem or concern?

20 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

No one else need apply.  

No one applies.  That's kinda the difference here.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...