Black candidates

[jabronijames]

I was thinking more along the lines of samoan.

Joe Salave'a should quit playing and coach our football team!

[Thoth]

Screw this thread.

I am interested in the best coach. The best candidate.

With no adjective inserted before coach or candidate.

I don't care if he is orange, purple, black, or white.

Screw the Rooney Rule, and these types of discussions, whiche are reverse racism.

[CM916]

Screw this thread.

I am interested in the best coach. The best candidate.

With no adjective inserted before coach or candidate.

I don't care if he is orange, purple, black, or white.

Screw the Rooney Rule, and these types of discussions, whiche are reverse racism.

Sadly, the Rooney rule forces these racist discussions.

[CallMeGreen]

Screw this thread.

I am interested in the best coach. The best candidate.

With no adjective inserted before coach or candidate.

I don't care if he is orange, purple, black, or white.

Screw the Rooney Rule, and these types of discussions, whiche are reverse racism.

Typical viewpoint, one that probably doesn't understand the rule. Said 1000 times already, the Rule only insists minorities get in on the interview process, not that they get hired.

As it is, it's really a harmless and non-threatening rule. Why does everyone feel so offended by it? This kind of lash-out mentality is why there are laws against vigilanty justice.

If you think tax laws are stupid, does that mean you don't pay taxes [any tax cheaters can keep your answers anonymous]. There's really no problem in not paying taxes, unless you get caught. Sometimes it's much easier to just follow the rules rather than ignore the rules. If it's that big of a deal, then fight to have the Rule dismissed. But as it stands, the Rule is there, so get used to it.

As I've said before, it's really not wide-scope enough. It should apply all the way through upper management and ownership, but we'll save that topic for another day.

[Thoth]

I also know that DC has been given the nickname of "Chocolate City" so wouldn't the idea of a Black Head Coach in the Nations Capital be a sign of the Redskins moving forward and rectifying the fact they were the last team to have a black player and it was basically forced upon them.

.

Wah, wah, wah.

Gimmie your address, I'll mail you a pacifier, and some cheese to go with your whine.

No one on the Redskins right now had anything to do with that decision, and most of the fans didn't either. We also didn't own slaves. And the race of a present-day coach has nothing to do with the race of past player. Is hiring an African American coach going to ease the suffering past players endured, renumerate them for it?

Live in the present, and stop whining about the past.

I have no problem with a black coach if he is the best candidate, but spare us the Chocolate City, whitey shafted us in the past, you owe us rigamoroll.

The Redskins and DC can move forward by hiring a coach that WINS. This should be the ONLY consideration. He can be a cross dressing leper with pink polka dotted skin as long as he wins.

Majorities all over the country lose jobs to minorities with demonstrably inferior qualifications all in the name of equality. Affirmative Action is reverse racism, nothing more.

People are either treated differently because of their skin color, or they are not. The former is racism, the latter is equality. Please stop advocating racism.

[FootballGuy2677]

Jim Caldwell!!!

One guy who I think could be a good coach. Supposedly he is gonna take over the reigns after Dungy leaves.

[Thoth]

Typical viewpoint, one that probably doesn't understand the rule. Said 1000 times already, the Rule only insists minorities get in on the interview process, not that they get hired.

As it is, it's really a harmless and non-threatening rule. Why does everyone feel so offended by it? This kind of lash-out mentality is why there are laws against vigilanty justice.

If you think tax laws are stupid, does that mean you don't pay taxes [any tax cheaters can keep your answers anonymous]. There's really no problem in not paying taxes, unless you get caught. Sometimes it's much easier to just follow the rules rather than ignore the rules. If it's that big of a deal, then fight to have the Rule dismissed. But as it stands, the Rule is there, so get used to it.

As I've said before, it's really not wide-scope enough. It should apply all the way through upper management and ownership, but we'll save that topic for another day.

You are asking that individuals receive consideration soley based on skin color. Whether they are hired or not isn't the point. It is a form of racism, demanding that a person be considered for a position, or be given a chance to interview for a position, SOLEY BASED ON RACE. This is racism.

As it is, it's really a harmless and non-threatening rule. Why does everyone feel so offended by it? This kind of lash-out mentality is why there are laws against vigilanty justice.

1. May I reccomend a remedial English course.

2. Vigilante.

3. Freedom of speech, and speaking out, is much different than advocating physical violence. Which I never did. I think these policies shoud be fought--with words and reason, not fists.

4. The precedent of giving people different treatment--whether good or bad--based soley on their skin color is a dangerous one. It is NOT harmless. It is the antithesis of a merit based society, and a fool's remedy for the problem of racism.

If you think tax laws are stupid, does that mean you don't pay taxes [any tax cheaters can keep your answers anonymous]. There's really no problem in not paying taxes, unless you get caught.

Huh? So fraught with collander logic, I won't bother.

Sometimes it's much easier to just follow the rules rather than ignore the rules.

Good thing Martin Luther King, George Washington, and countless others didn't think that way.

If it's that big of a deal, then fight to have the Rule dismissed. But as it stands, the Rule is there, so get used to it.

On that much we can agree. Reverse racism is now an integral part of our society. Absolutely no argument from me. Is our society on the rise, or on the decline?

As I've said before, it's really not wide-scope enough. It should apply all the way through upper management and ownership, but we'll save that topic for another day.

Just what our sinking Titanic of a society needs, more moronic social engineers who have never suceeded themselves telling other successful people how to do it.

Yes, let's hire all the important decision makers in an organization based on attributes other than their competence and ability to perform.

The operative word being ownership. If you own a business, shouldn't you be able to hire who you want?

If the government can tell you who to hire (X% black), and who you can't fire, and take half your profit, do you really own your business? Or anything?

Here's a thouht for you. Make a billion dollars. Buy an NFL team. Then hire whoever you want. Thousands of employees, all black, if that's your desire. An ENTIRE organization without a single white dude. You won't hear white people complaining. It is YOUR business after all.

I won't even ask you to interview a token white guy for the head coaching position, to be considered soley based on skin color. If you're short sighted enough to hire based on skin color, height, tit-size, or anything else besides competence and talent, your business will flounder, but hey, it is your business. Do as you will.

Why is it so hard for you to let other business owners do the same?

[Shilsu]

You are asking that individuals receive consideration soley based on skin color. Whether they are hired or not isn't the point. It is a form of racism, demanding that a person be considered for a position, or be given a chance to interview for a position, SOLEY BASED ON RACE. This is racism.

As it is, it's really a harmless and non-threatening rule. Why does everyone feel so offended by it? This kind of lash-out mentality is why there are laws against vigilanty justice.

1. May I reccomend a remedial English course.

2. Vigilante.

3. Freedom of speech, and speaking out, is much different than advocating physical violence. Which I never did. I think these policies shoud be fought--with words and reason, not fists.

4. The precedent of giving people different treatment--whether good or bad--based soley on their skin color is a dangerous one. It is NOT harmless. It is the antithesis of a merit based society, and a fool's remedy for the problem of racism.

If you think tax laws are stupid, does that mean you don't pay taxes [any tax cheaters can keep your answers anonymous]. There's really no problem in not paying taxes, unless you get caught.

Huh? So fraught with collander logic, I won't bother.

Sometimes it's much easier to just follow the rules rather than ignore the rules.

Good thing Martin Luther King, George Washington, and countless others didn't think that way.

If it's that big of a deal, then fight to have the Rule dismissed. But as it stands, the Rule is there, so get used to it.

On that much we can agree. Reverse racism is now an integral part of our society. Absolutely no argument from me. Is our society on the rise, or on the decline?

As I've said before, it's really not wide-scope enough. It should apply all the way through upper management and ownership, but we'll save that topic for another day.

Just what our sinking Titanic of a society needs, more moronic social engineers who have never suceeded themselves telling other successful people how to do it.

Yes, let's hire all the important decision makers in an organization based on attributes other than their competence and ability to perform.

The operative word being ownership. If you own a business, shouldn't you be able to hire who you want?

If the government can tell you who to hire (X% black), and who you can't fire, and take half your profit, do you really own your business? Or anything?

Here's a thouht for you. Make a billion dollars. Buy an NFL team. Then hire whoever you want. Thousands of employees, all black, if that's your desire. An ENTIRE organization without a single white dude. You won't hear white people complaining. It is YOUR business after all.

I won't even ask you to interview a token white guy for the head coaching position, to be considered soley based on skin color. If you're short sighted enough to hire based on skin color, height, tit-size, or anything else besides competence and talent, your business will flounder, but hey, it is your business. Do as you will.

Why is it so hard for you to let other business owners do the same?

There's one thing wrong with your entire post.

WHITES ARE NOT THE MINORITY.

[BG4Life]

Screw this thread.

I am interested in the best coach. The best candidate.

With no adjective inserted before coach or candidate.

I don't care if he is orange, purple, black, or white.

Screw the Rooney Rule, and these types of discussions, whiche are reverse racism.

:doh:

[Shilsu]

Is it any wonder that most of the people against the Rooney Rule are the ones who have felt the least discrimination against them based on color of skin?

Let's use a realistic example.

Say you live in Japan. But you're white. And despite the fact you speak fluent Japanese and have business expertise on par with all of your Japanese colleagues, if not more, the bosses NEVER consider you for a promotion.

Not because they're thinking, "He's white, he's gotta suck."

They just subconsciously ignore you. Not on purpose, but that's just the way life in Japan is.

So management at your company realizes this is a problem and proposes that at least one non-Japanese person must be interviewed for each managerial position, are you going to sit there and say, "THIS RULE IS RACIST AGAINST ME!!!!"

I seriously doubt it.

And then when some Japanese person against this rule comes along and says, "Why don't you go start your own company for whites and you can have any anti-Japanese rules you want, I won't say anything." Are you gonna nod and smile like an idiot and do just that?

Oh and yes, this is a real problem in Japan.

Only recently do we have such events such as a white guy being the CEO of Sony, but it's still a problem at many companies. Not just against whites either, but also against third generation Korean-Japanese and Chinese-Japanese who were born and grew up in Japan and can't even speak a lick of Korean or Chinese. They're forced to adopt Japanese names for work purposes just so people don't realize they are ethnically Korean or Chinese.

Unfortunately for white and black and so on, they can't just change their name.

[southskinsfan]

Marvin Lewis. I thought he should have gotten a shot once they let Spurrier go. He was a good candidate. I think that they will interview Singletary though, since he is on the the market.

Didn't chuck and duck Spurrier leave in his own? :munchout:

[81ArtMonk81]

I also know that DC has been given the nickname of "Chocolate City"

wow! i was born in DC & have lived most of my life in DC & have never heard that non-sense

[skinsince72]

Any American Indians currently in the NFL? Imagine that, given our mascot and all. Maybe that would squash that argument also.

[cphil006]

Any American Indians currently in the NFL? Imagine that, given our mascot and all. Maybe that would squash that argument also.

One of our first coaches was an Indian.

[cphil006]

i agree with you. i'm tired of seeing the same 5 guys getting jobs. at least in the last few years, there has been more diversity in coaching (white and black).

what ever happened to wayne fontes?

Yes, lots of new faces out there. Grimm, Schwartz. It easy to hire someone who has been a HC before. Gregg only for three years, so he can't be looked at too negatively.

Fontes was fired when he went 5-11 combined with a 1-4 playoff record. A career record of 67-71. He claims he suffered injuries that prevented him from ever coaching again.