Houstons owner racist comments??

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

You make me feel old. You offended me.

 

All kidding aside, EVERYONE should try to "see all sides of things" before judging. Not enough people do that. Maybe this is the beginning of that here. I appreciate this forum a lot. 

Yeah a lot of people in here are in their 20's and 30's so I feel old when I say old but I can still do this on a good day

[CF4L]

51 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

I do agree that as annoying as Kaep can be, he probably does deserve a backup job somewhere or even a third string job.

 

It is kinda odd but I have to kinda wonder too if something behind the scenes with money demands or his girlfriend is hindering his career here too now.

 

 

Because you can get backups for dirt cheap with less of the baggage. I think if Kaep wanted to be a backup he probably would've been had he not been turned into such a PR nightmare. 

 

But why would any NFL team subject themselves to that unless the player was worth it. Talentwise he's not.

 

This isn't Brady or Rodgers here. 

[PrincetonTiger]

12 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

You make me feel old. You offended me.

 

All kidding aside, EVERYONE should try to "see all sides of things" before judging. Not enough people do that. Maybe this is the beginning of that here. I appreciate this forum a lot. 

Nice point 

 

 If you don’t know a person the best thing to do is to keep quiet

[PrincetonTiger]

8 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah a lot of people in here are in their 20's and 30's so I feel old when I say old but I can still do this on a good day

Try working with kids from K to 8th Gade nearly everyday 

[Jules]

27 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I love Scarlett Johansson. As an older white male I try to see all sides of things before I judge, maybe other white males should as well. You never know when you may offend someone with something you say.

 

I am more of a Jennifer Lawrence type of gal myself, since I think she is a killer actress and I was always addicted to the Hunger Games

 

 

But the Hunger Games, omg......I miss that when those films were coming out. Such a creepy storyline though.

 

Now the Colts have become district 12.

 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Jules said:

 

I am more of a Jennifer Lawrence type of gal myself, since I think she is a killer actress and I was always addicted to the Hunger Games

 

 

But the Hunger Games, omg......I miss that when those films were coming out. Such a creepy storyline though.

 

Now the Colts have become district 12.

 

Never seen one

[Jules]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Never seen one

 

I had read all the books first so I was pretty familiar with it when they came out as movies. 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

I am more of a Jennifer Lawrence type of gal myself, since I think she is a killer actress and I was always addicted to the Hunger Games

 

 

But the Hunger Games, omg......I miss that when those films were coming out. Such a creepy storyline though.

 

Now the Colts have become district 12.

 

Jennifer is gorgeous as well. I love her personality as well, her laugh is funny.

[PrincetonTiger]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Jennifer is gorgeous as well. I love her personality as well, her laugh is funny.

Kentucky Girl But She is a Dirrty Bird

[HOZER]

I am a Mexican American male. I have encountered discrimination on numerous occasions by White Americans, African Americans, and yes, even other Mexican Americans(I am light skinned). I have been profiled by some racist police officers(they admitted doing it) as well. Shoot, I've been discriminated against sight unseen, just because of my very traditional Mexican sounding name. Is it right? Absolutely not. You know what though? Nothing gets to an ignorant person worse then when they see you succeed and not let their narrow minded beliefs get under your skin. I have worked hard for all of my possessions and don't fall into anyone's stereotypes. Having worked construction, some factory jobs, and as a Firefighter for several years, I have VERY thick skin. It takes waaaaay more then what the Texans owner said(which was taken way out of context IMO) to get a reaction out of me. I've dealt with a lot of adversity in my life, and have ALWAYS persevered no matter what. Love me or hate me, I'm not going anywhere.

 

I realize not everyone is like me, I get it, but I believe if people stopped being so thin skinned/sensitive (all sides)and actually found more productive ways to bridge the divide that we could get somewhere as a society. What @NFLfan mentioned about Baldwin is an example of a productive method. IMO kneeling for the Anthem is not productive. ALL sides have to be open to constructive criticism in order to get somewhere. 

 

As my Mom always told me:

 

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Kentucky Girl But She is a Dirrty Bird

She is a Louisville fan I think.

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

She is a Louisville fan I think.

Dirty Birds are s nickname for UL fans

[Superman]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

While wearing a Castro t shirt.   One of the most oppressive men ever.   

 

Yeah, he undercut himself in several ways. That doesn't mean nothing he said or did has merit.

[HOZER]

18 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

I am more of a Jennifer Lawrence type of gal myself, since I think she is a killer actress and I was always addicted to the Hunger Games

 

 

But the Hunger Games, omg......I miss that when those films were coming out. Such a creepy storyline though.

 

Now the Colts have become district 12.

 

Hunger Games is a guilty pleasure of mine 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, GOZER said:

I am a Mexican American male. I have encountered discrimination on numerous occasions by White Americans, African Americans, and yes, even other Mexican Americans(I am light skinned). I have been profiled by some racist police officers(they admitted doing it) as well. Shoot, I've been discriminated against sight unseen, just because of my very traditional Mexican sounding name. Is it right? Absolutely not. You know what though? Nothing gets to an ignorant person worse then when they see you succeed and not let their narrow minded beliefs get under your skin. I have worked hard for all of my possessions and don't fall into anyone's stereotypes. Having worked construction, some factory jobs, and as a Firefighter for several years, I have VERY thick skin. It takes waaaaay more then what the Texans owner said(which was taken way out of context IMO) to get a reaction out of me. I've dealt with a lot of adversity in my life, and have ALWAYS persevered no matter what. Love me or hate me, I'm not going anywhere.

 

I realize not everyone is like me, I get it, but I believe if people stopped being so thin skinned/sensitive (all sides)and actually found more productive ways to bridge the divide that we could get somewhere as a society. What @NFLfan mentioned about Baldwin is an example of a productive method. IMO kneeling for the Anthem is not productive. ALL sides have to be open to constructive criticism in order to get somewhere. 

 

As my Mom always told me:

 

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

 

Yeah I am pretty thick skinned as well and not much bothers me, of course you being an Mexican American Male probably have encountered more discrimination than me. Great Post by the way, you are a great guy.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, GOZER said:

Hunger Games is a guilty pleasure of mine 

Yeah we love us some JLAW

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Dirty Birds are s nickname for UL fans

Yeah I thought so

[Jules]

Just now, GOZER said:

Hunger Games is a guilty pleasure of mine 

 

Been watching some clips over recently to refresh my memory. I still have a major weakness too for Johanna from district 7.

 

Jena Malone. Underrated actress.

 

[HOZER]

28 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Nice point 

 

 If you don’t know a person the best thing to do is to keep quiet

 Please explain? You mean to not make assumptions? Or just not talk to them alltogether? I think engaging in some kind of dialogue would help people realize how similar we all really are.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, GOZER said:

 Please explain? You mean to not make assumptions? Or just not talk to them alltogether? I think engaging in some kind of dialogue would help people realize how similar we all really are.

Do not make assumptions or use certain phrases

[Jules]

Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

Do not make assumptions or use certain phrases

 

Just out of curiosity, if something ever slips out without thinking and someone then apologizes, is an apology anymore ever good enough?

 

Or can someone usually tell if it's not heartfelt enough of an apology and just PR talk?

 

I am just saying this too since we all have been guilty in our lives of saying something we should not have.

[HOZER]

Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

Do not make assumptions or use certain phrases

Ok I gotcha. Here's another one of my Moms favorite sayings:

 

"If you don't  have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

 

 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Jules said:

 

Just out of curiosity, if something ever slips out without thinking and someone then apologizes, is an apology anymore ever good enough?

 

Or can someone usually tell if it's not heartfelt enough of an apology and just PR talk?

 

I am just saying this too since we all have been guilty in our lives of saying something we should not have.

It depends on the situation 

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, GOZER said:

Ok I gotcha. Here's another one of my Moms favorite sayings:

 

"If you don't  have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

 

 

Yep know it well

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

Just out of curiosity, if something ever slips out without thinking and someone then apologizes, is an apology anymore ever good enough?

 

Or can someone usually tell if it's not heartfelt enough of an apology and just PR talk?

 

I am just saying this too since we all have been guilty in our lives of saying something we should not have.

I think it depends on the person. If it only happens once than probably they will be ok. I look at a person like Cam and he keeps walking out of press conferences saying all sorts of silly stuff. So with him, he is just digging a hole he cant get out of with the media. So when he apologizes a lot of people wont believe him.

[Jules]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

It depends on the situation 

 

I think to many athletes they mentally automatically compared this situation to the Clippers owner who got the boot.

 

I might be wrong though.

 

But I think Draymond Green on the Warriors compared it instantly to Donald Sterling. I briefly heard what Draymond said and I think he said basically to them they hear words like "sons of a b**ches" and now "inmates" and it's starting to really get to them mentally. In a way I do understand this since I think this is all triggering them. The NBA players have talked a lot too about the NFL drama.

 

Although with the Houston owner, he was trying to use a figure of speech maybe but he worded it wrong. I think it's hard to assume he is 100% a racist here. It was a poor choice of words and I hear some Texans players are still irked.

[Jules]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think it depends on the person. If it only happens once than probably they will be ok. I look at a person like Cam and he keeps walking out of press conferences saying all sorts of silly stuff. So with him, he is just digging a hole he cant get out of with the media. So when he apologizes a lot of people wont believe him.

 

True, future actions can forgive a lot from the past. But Cam is one who often still acts like a giant pouting child unfortunately.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Jules said:

 

I think to many athletes they mentally automatically compared this situation to the Clippers owner who got the boot.

 

I might be wrong though.

 

But I think Draymond Green on the Warriors compared it instantly to Donald Sterling. I briefly heard what Draymond said and I think he said basically to them they hear words like "sons of a b**ches" and now "inmates" and it's starting to really get to them mentally. In a way I do understand this since I think this is all triggering them. The NBA players have talked a lot too about the NFL drama.

 

Although with the Houston owner, he was trying to use a figure of speech maybe but he worded it wrong. I think it's hard to assume he is 100% a racist here. It was a poor choice of words and I hear some Texans players are still irked.

So true as I have said before no sure of his intent but the statement he used was uncalled for

[HOZER]

17 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

Been watching some clips over recently to refresh my memory. I still have a major weakness too for Johanna from district 7.

 

Jena Malone. Underrated actress.

 

Love her. That elevator scene, lol! I'll have to watch some of her other work now!

[PrincetonTiger]

7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think it depends on the person. If it only happens once than probably they will be ok. I look at a person like Cam and he keeps walking out of press conferences saying all sorts of silly stuff. So with him, he is just digging a hole he cant get out of with the media. So when he apologizes a lot of people wont believe him.

Cam is Cam and I don’t think he really cares about what others think 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, bananabucket said:

Yet again, people slink away when their ideas are challenged and they are asked for substance.

 

I'm done with this thread, but my inbox is open.  I won't wait up.

 

 

Wow. I'm in CA, I left work and sat in traffic for an hour. I didn't slink off.

 

I originally declined to engage on the Larry Elder video because a) it's really not related to football, and b) Larry Elder has a reputation as a racial injustice denier and I personally find him to be a panderer, to say the least.

 

I also believe that choosing his statements is a way of undercutting anyone who says racial injustice does exist, because 'if a successful and well-spoken black man says racism isn't a problem, then it must not be a problem!', and that's a notion I reject outright.

 

But fine, let's talk about what he said. And I'm not posting any of this to change anyone's mind, I'm only offering my thoughts because the idea that systemic racial injustice does not exist is one that I find to be false. I'm including a spoiler tag, anyone who clicks on it is subjecting themselves to a long post that they wouldn't ordinarily see on this site.

 

1) In response to the idea that police shooting black men is one of the biggest evidences of racial injustice in the country, he says, in so many words 'more white people are shot by police than black people, and black people shoot and kill each other more than white people/police shoot and kill black people, so that's not a legitimate evidence of racial injustice.' 

 

Straw man. First off and most obvious, even if it's true that black people commit crimes against black people, that doesn't erase the existence of racial inequality or prove that said inequality hasn't led to the avoidable killing of black people by police. 

 

Second, being killed by police is the most obvious extreme, but the problem starts before a person is killed. This study claims that in 2012 in the US, per 10,000, black people were more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested by police than white people, by almost 3 to 1. Hispanics, almost 2 to 1; Native Americans, over 2 to 1. So the idea that there is no evidence that minorities have a different experience with police than non-minorities doesn't hold up.

 

2) He suggests that because Baltimore, where Freddie Gray was killed, is mostly black, and because the local government and police department are mostly black, that means racism necessarily was not an issue in his death.

 

This argument suggests that because the mayor and police chief are black, and because 45% of the city is black, that it's impossible or unlikely for the officers involved in Gray's death to have acted differently toward Gray due to his race. I don't think it's hard to see how specious that argument is. And beyond that, as I said earlier, the issue related to police treatment toward minorities isn't exclusive to whether police kill a black person because he's black.

 

3) He says 'if you just do what the police tell you, you won't be shot.' 

 

Again, this ignores the argument that racial profiling played a role in police stop to begin with. Since 2003, blacks and Latinos make up about 85% of those subjected to NYC's 'stop and frisk' law, and almost 90% of those subjected to these police stops are innocent. This analysis by USA Today in 2014 found that blacks are dramatically more likely to be arrested than any other racial group in the US.

 

4) He argues that affirmative action -- specifically as it relates to higher education -- makes it so minorities have just as much access, if not more, to work their way into the middle class. He also argues that it's easier to get financial support for schooling if you're poor. The old 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' argument.

 

Here's the problem with this argument. It's true that if a person works hard and focuses, they can escape poverty, move up the East side, and get away from a lot of issues that plague inner city minorities. But this is where the 'systemic' part of the systemic racial injustice issue pops up. It's when you consider the history of the environment.

 

You can look and say, like Elder does, that the problem is with the prevalence of single parent families in the black community, but that is partly a result of environment. Look at the racial disparities in the criminal justice system: minorities are more likely to have their cars searched, more likely to be arrested for drug use (despite the same or higher rate of drug use and sales among whites), more likely to be jailed while awaiting trial (most likely because of a lesser ability to post bail), more likely to be offered a plea deal that includes jail time, more likely to be excluded from a jury due to race, black males are more likely serve a longer prison sentence than white males for the same offense, and more likely to have their probation revoked (Slate compilation, 2015, claims sourced therein). 

 

There's a drastic disparity in drug crime sentencing -- until 2010, a first time offense for a person with 5 grams of crack carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years; you had to have 500 grams of cocaine to hit that same minimum sentence. As of 2009, 79% of sentenced crack offenders were black; only 28% of sentenced cocaine offenders were black. The difference -- crack costs less and is more accessible to minorities than cocaine. 

 

Systemic issues that lead to an increase number of single parent households, but Elder would have you believe that black women have kids out of wedlock so they can 'marry the system' and live off welfare.

 

The inner cities that are most affected by these trends are the same areas that have lower high school graduation rates, their neighborhoods are the ones most affected by gang violence, most affected by police patrols which target individuals with "priors," their schools are the ones that have fewer resources, per student. And these are the environments that minority youths are expected to overcome so that they can qualify for college. 

 

This all paints a picture of a problem that has existed for a long time. Kids whose parents didn't go to college, who come from broken homes, who are more likely to have older family members who are ex-cons than college graduates, who are more likely to visit their parents in prison or at the cemetery than to go on a college visit with them -- 12-18 year old boys and girls who are born into a difficult environment and don't understand why that environment exists or how to get out of it -- are supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

 

It's my belief that people are more likely to be a product of their environment than they are to rise above it.

 

5) Elder repeatedly asks whether racism is still a major problem "in 2015," as if racism is old history. This argument suggests that, because slavery is long gone, and the Civil Rights Act was so long ago, that racism isn't a significant problem anymore. 

 

Connected with the previous comments, the idea that racial disparities don't exist and don't affect people now because the big and obvious racial issues went away a long time ago isn't true. If minorities are more likely to be stopped by police, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be incarcerated, more likely to be subjected to mandatory minimum prison sentences, less likely to grow up in stable households/environments, less likely to go to the best high schools, less likely to graduate high school... there are still systemic issues that affect minorities more directly and to a greater degree.

 

So yes, I have big problems with Elder's comments. 

 

There are other issues that I won't go into detail on, but they include minority voter suppression and income disparity, which perpetuate these systemic issues, and have done so for decades, or longer.

 

I'm not here to blame white people for these systemic issues that affect minorities, nor am I trying to guilt anyone into feeling sorry for minorities. But I think it's very clear that these issues do exist, they are systemic in nature, and they are perpetuated by the criminal justice system, and worse, by people like Larry Elder who pretend they don't exist just because, anecdotally, it's possible for a black person to work their way out of the hood and not get shot to death by the police.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, Jules said:

 

Just out of curiosity, if something ever slips out without thinking and someone then apologizes, is an apology anymore ever good enough?

 

Or can someone usually tell if it's not heartfelt enough of an apology and just PR talk?

 

I am just saying this too since we all have been guilty in our lives of saying something we should not have.

 

It seems like never, and that's too bad. People are required to never make a mistake in public anymore, because once you do, you're labeled as a blank-ist, and your apology will be dismissed as a calculation. 

 

I think it's one thing to be genuinely bothered or offended by something; it's another to be unwilling to accept that everyone is capable of saying or doing something they regret.

[southwest1]

9 hours ago, Yehoodi said:

I am an invitee to this message board.  As an invitee I must accept the rules and regulations of the house.  As a mature adult I must accept those rules as they are contingent upon my status as an invitee.   What I can do on a public street corner or in the privacy of my own house, regardless of how well founded my intentions or ideas are, I can not advocated that I can post here in a similar fashion as I express my views and opinions on the street or my house.  

 

Simply put, one must understand that one must yield some of ones bundle of rights when you are an invitee, guest etc.

 

Similarly, if I am an employee I must yield and understand the fact I have to give up some of bundle of rights when I am in the capacity of an employee.  I just find it troubling why folks can not understand this point. 

 

As for McNair's comments, I do not think they were racist per se and perhaps may have come out of frustration.   It is phrase commonly used when the folks not in control and making the rules, altho his version may have unconscious undertones (i,e, NFL players are criminals by nature).  Here, I can see his point about players thinking they have a "right" to take a knee, anymore than I have a "right" start a thread supporting Tim Tebow's advocating of his religion during interviews during or after games. 

 

It is not to say that inequality or the need for more faith in our country is true or not, or a just causes or not, but the simple principle that we need to understand that at times our status to be free and express ourselves can have restriction depending on where we are located. 

 

As for the point about suppression, it is not suppression in my opinion.  It would only be suppression if the NFL did not allow someone to take a knee for inequality but then allow another to take a knee for a different cause.       

Hey there Yehoodi, 

 

I always enjoy reading your posts because you know how to frame an argument or point of view & apply legal jargon & concepts in an easily digestible fashion. Yes, if a person works for another boss or owner in this case they agree to certain conditions if they want to receive a paycheck on a frequent basis. As you say, guests do not get to defy the protocols of the house or organization when the owner cuts a player's check or standard of living. 

 

Were Bob McNair's words to his players wise? No, they were far from his finest hour. I do not want to label the Texans owner as a full fledged racist based off of 1 racially insensitive remark that views players on the surface as his commodity or cash cow for fiscal gain & prosperity. I need a large pattern of derogatory actions before I can claim an owner is a bigot or sees players as 2nd class citizens prohibited from speaking out or kneeling. 

 

I think back to the Paid Patriotism scandal where the armed services paid franchises to agree to publicly praise the army, navy, air force, & marines on the field during games & now, these same owners wanna claim that saluting the flag is part of their NFL job description like post game media obligations. Very hypocritical on the league's part if you ask me. 

 

I know this wasn't part of your initial post Yehoodi, but this is what bothers me most about Colin Keapernic's original stand against police brutality among black men & women as well as a failure on the part of the justice system to put police officers who murder innocent minorities behind bars...As a spokesmen for this movement, Colin isn't all that bright. He claims he's for equality & then he wears a Castro T-shirt. I like the message just cringe at the messenger. That's all. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It seems like never, and that's too bad. People are required to never make a mistake in public anymore, because once you do, you're labeled as a blank-ist, and your apology will be dismissed as a calculation. 

 

I think it's one thing to be genuinely bothered or offended by something; it's another to be unwilling to accept that everyone is capable of saying or doing something they regret.

Unless your Jemele Hill. She called Trump a White Supremacist and ESPN didn't even do anything about it and people laughed it off. Let a white male say anything like that toward Obama, their career would be over.

[southwest1]

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It seems like never, and that's too bad. People are required to never make a mistake in public anymore, because once you do, you're labeled as a blank-ist, and your apology will be dismissed as a calculation. 

 

I think it's one thing to be genuinely bothered or offended by something; it's another to be unwilling to accept that everyone is capable of saying or doing something they regret.

Bingo! 

 

That's what petrifies people now. The fear that a free flowing discussion of ideas isn't even allowed anymore. I remember a discussion in 1 of my first library school graduate classes at UW-Madison once. It was right after 9/11 happened & the subject of hate speech was raised about how do we as future librarians & archival repository workers broach the dilemma of fostering an open dialogue with your community while at the same time not looking for scapegoats to tarnish simply because local & national hysteria might reach a fever pitch simply because Middle eastern terrorists committed a violent act of destruction, chaos, & pain. What I learned from that discourse is that people say things in fear they don't really mean & it's our job as librarians to give people credible information & to let people breathe without vilifying them or condemning them at a time of crisis. 

 

Most folks are good people & you're exactly right Superman, we all cross a line sometimes which doesn't mean we are despicable or beyond redemption or worthy of the benefit of the doubt. Now, don't get me wrong, you can't allow any group to be unfairly harassed or targeted. I know that. I just like what you said about forgiving mistakes because if folks feel threatened that they can't express their thoughts openly that's when they go underground & things grow dicey & dangerous because resentment eventually has a habit of exploding sooner or later. 

[Swan Ronson]

9 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

I do not deny that many, many people are offended by it and I am okay with those people boycotting the NFL.  Which according to some of the data they are boycotting.  I think it is a bad business decision by the players to “offend” a large percentage of their fan base.

 

 It’s funny, I just read an article about some players in New Jersey taking a knee for the national anthem during a high school game. Two of the officials walked off the field, in essence protesting the protesters. The school officials thought it was OK for the high school players to take a knee but weren’t OK with the officials walking off in protest.   Why is it OK for the high school players to protest something but not the officials?   I find it interesting where some people draw the line, the protesters are OK as long as it conforms with their ideology but it’s not OK if it doesn’t. 

Just a stab in the dark but I'm guessing the players only knelt during the anthem and the game would have gone ahead as planned.

 

Did the officials refuse to officiate? If so, that's completely different. 

[southwest1]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Unless your Jemele Hill. She called Trump a White Supremacist and ESPN didn't even do anything about it and people laughed it off. Let a white male say anything like that toward Obama, their career would be over.

You raise an interesting point CBE. I know in the past I have been guilty of liking or disliking comments by high profile figures based on whether or not, I lean toward them party persuasion wise. I'm more cognizant of that than I used to be. 

 

The Jamele Hill situation ties into what Yehoodi spoke of earlier. I'm sure ESPN had language in their contract stipulating inappropriate conduct on the air/social media & if she wants to continue to be paid a salary from ESPN she can't say anything disparaging about the current occupant in the White House without facing a possible suspension or termination as a company consequence.

 

The funny thing is this: Hank Williams Jr. got let go from his MNF "Are You Ready For Some Football" promo song as a result of saying something totally unfounded under a previous Commander-In-Chief & then ESPN mysteriously hired him back to remix his old football jingle. Hmmm...Even if Miss Hill had been terminated for her twitter feed remarks, she'd have a sound case for discrimination or at least a large financial settlement given that ESPN didn't treat all their employees/compensated talent equally, consistently, or fairly. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

You raise an interesting point CBE. I know in the past I have been guilty of liking or disliking comments by high profile figures based on whether or not, I lean toward them party persuasion wise. I'm more cognizant of that than I used to be. 

 

The Jamele Hill situation ties into what Yehoodi spoke of earlier. I'm sure ESPN had language in their contract stipulating inappropriate conduct on the air/social media & if she wants to continue to be paid a salary from ESPN she can't say anything disparaging about the current occupant in the White House without facing a possible suspension or termination as a company consequence.

 

The funny thing is this: Hank Williams Jr. got let go from his MNF "Are You Ready For Some Football" promo song as a result of saying something totally unfounded under a previous Commander-In-Chief & then ESPN mysteriously hired him back to remix his old football jingle. Hmmm...Even if Miss Hill had been terminated for her twitter feed remarks, she'd have a sound case for discrimination or at least a large financial settlement given that ESPN didn't treat all their employees/compensated talent equally, consistently, or fairly. 

I think Hill should've been fired, I am not even a Trump guy but that is slander and you are calling the President a racist. Just ridiculous and childish. ESPN fired Curt Shilling for just saying transgender's shouldn't use a female bathroom. Hill is racist beyond belief. I remember when Luck got drafted 1st, she kept going on and on about how RG3 would be a lot better and laughed about it. How he would have a better career, how did that work Ms Hill? I love almost all women but she is a bad person IMO.

[southwest1]

47 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think Hill should've been fired, I am not even a Trump guy but that is slander and you are calling the President a racist. Just ridiculous and childish. ESPN fired Curt Shilling for just saying transgender's shouldn't use a female bathroom. Hill is racist beyond belief. I remember when Luck got drafted 1st, she kept going on and on about how RG3 would be a lot better and laughed about it. How he would have a better career, how did that work Ms Hill? I love almost all women but she is a bad person IMO.

I will confess to you that I know who Jamele Hill is, but I don't follow her that closely. I do recall her being a fill in on ESPN "First Take" once in awhile when either Skip Bayless or Stephen A Smith were ill or on vacation. Anybody that praised RG3 over Luck doesn't know football very well & what it takes to win games in this league. Having said all that, I'm wrong a lot too in my NFL projections too, but I'm not well compensated to be savvy & smart in sports either. 

 

I do sympathize with Miss Hill's frustrations over how the current oval office occupant choses to conduct himself. I'd elaborate here but I don't wanna violate any forum rules. Enough said. However, Hill knows that she can't embarrass her boss ESPN online if she wants to be compensated by ESPN. She's just lucky that she wasn't let go under some sort of morality clause in her contract. I'm no lawyer, but I do know that often times companies use morality clauses to let employees go who cost them money, create negative publicity, or put the company in an unflattering public relations light.

 

If I'm wrong about that morality clause statement, please set the record straight Yehoodi since you actually went to law school. I've heard that morality clauses are like resisting arrest charges to a cop. Translation: Don't tick me off or you're gone as in dismissed & you're about to have a very bad day. Companies use those clauses to let go of what they deem as trouble makers etc. etc. 

 

What made my jaw drop about that whole situation is when the White House Press Secretary encouraged ESPN to dismiss Hill. Whoa, ESPN is a private company & no one in the White House has the authorization to tell a private company what employees to terminate. That's a very slippery slope you can never, never allow under any circumstances period. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

I will confess to you that I know who Jamele Hill is, but I don't follow her that closely. I do recall her being a fill in on ESPN "First Take" once in awhile when either Skip Bayless or Stephen A Smith were ill or on vacation. Anybody that praised RG3 over Luck doesn't know football very well & what it takes to win games in this league. Having said all that, I'm wrong a lot too in my NFL projections too, but I'm not well compensated to be savvy & smart in sports either. 

 

I do sympathize with Miss Hill's frustrations over how the current oval office occupant choses to conduct himself. I'd elaborate here but I don't wanna violate any forum rules. Enough said. However, Hill knows that she can't embarrass her boss ESPN online if she wants to be compensated by ESPN. She's just lucky that she wasn't let go under some sort of morality clause in her contract. I'm no lawyer, but I do know that often times companies use morality clauses to let employees go who cost them money, create negative publicity, or put the company in an unflattering public relations light.

 

If I'm wrong about that morality clause statement, please set the record straight Yehoodi since you actually went to law school. I've heard that morality clauses are like resisting arrests charges to a cop. Translation: Don't tick me off or you're gone as in dismissed & you're about to have a very bad day. Companies use those clauses to let go of what they deem as trouble makers etc. etc. 

She actually did get suspended by ESPN and I didn't even know it because I don't watch her show. It was for bad mouthing Jerry Jones over the kneeling issue though. Proves my point about her. I just googled her is how I found out. Her mouth finally got her in trouble. If you ever hear her talk, she seems to hate white people. She bad mouths the president, she bad mouths Jerry Jones, she makes fun of Luck. Pattern, I can read people like a book and I know when I see good people and someone who is just trying to stir up stuff.