Stephen A Smith responds to being labelled a ?
Options
Comments
-
When he talked about women and got checked he was shook
-
He a ? ... crackers made him apologize for being real bout domestic violence.... he a ? for not telling the truth about rouseyMarcusGarvey wrote: »When he talked about women and got checked he was shook
Should he have lost out on his career arguing a point where nothing other than an apology would've sufficed for his employer and public opinion?? Let's get real. He did what he had to do for his money. He said what he said about it. It's no way he comes out of that in an environment where everyone is talking about ? culture -
He bloviates n ? on Colin kaepernick for not voting , then nick sa an come out the next day and says "I've been so busy I forgot the election was going on so no I didn't vote" and SAS says nothing about it. That's y he is a ?
But in all honesty, that's different man. Kap called himself standing up against white supremacy but Nick Saban has no responsibility to the black community like that, Nicks ancestors didn't have to die for his right to vote the way Kap's did. What was Stephen A suppose to say to Nick? -
onetoughmiracle wrote: »He bloviates n ? on Colin kaepernick for not voting , then nick sa an come out the next day and says "I've been so busy I forgot the election was going on so no I didn't vote" and SAS says nothing about it. That's y he is a ?
He spoke out against him too on his radio show. He basically said that no one is that stupid to believe that. He also said that It's insulting to everyone's intelligence to believe that Saban was so wrapped up in football to notice that an election was taking place. Especially when other coaches were telling their athletes to take the time out of their day to vote (I'm paraphrasing of course).
He should have said that on ESPN -
Yep. And the thing was he was RIGHT. Women (especially black ones) tend to provoke a confrontation from men when they assume we won't hit back. It's on both parties to think before doing something stupid. But the ? in him made him apologize to that white ? Michelle Beadle. He goes out his way to be unapologetic when criticizing his own saying ? like "I don't give a damn, but gets on national tv and apologizes to Beadle for something he not even wrong about? ? Stephen AMarcusGarvey wrote: »When he talked about women and got checked he was shook
Let's not forget his comments supporting Mark Cuban saying "he's scared on black kids in a hoodie" -
I heard SAS defending the old Hawks owner after he said there were too many black people at the games. It's been ? that ? every since.
-
manofmorehouse wrote: »He a ? ... crackers made him apologize for being real bout domestic violence.... he a ? for not telling the truth about rouseyMarcusGarvey wrote: »When he talked about women and got checked he was shook
Should he have lost out on his career arguing a point where nothing other than an apology would've sufficed for his employer and public opinion?? Let's get real. He did what he had to do for his money. He said what he said about it. It's no way he comes out of that in an environment where everyone is talking about ? culture
But he can tear down black athletes bout weed tho? -
Dathard Perry JR
-
Most of you ? don't know when and where to use the term ? . ? wasn't the term used to call a black person who was keekeeing for the his cracka master. ? was a term that southern crackas gave all blacks.
They obviously don't hear you -
Joker_De_La_Lover wrote: »
They hear. They're just too stupid to understand. We've been around and around on the use of that word. What it comes down to is that some people simply aren't intelligent enough to make a real point, so they just call names. -
Stephen A Smith is usually wrong about everything, even sports. He is a ? .
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Joker_De_La_Lover wrote: »
They hear. They're just too stupid to understand. We've been around and around on the use of that word. What it comes down to is that some people simply aren't intelligent enough to make a real point, so they just call names.
U called people stupid then say they too dumb to make a real Point.... ? meet kettle homie -
He's not a ? but he does try to play the middle far too often. For y'all saying how come he doesn't criticize other people he does call out white folks too for their ? , as he went on Phil Jackson just this morning, but the perception that he's more critical of black folks than others is already pervasive so it won't stick out as much.
As for the comments about women I've been very vocal about my hatred for that stupid ? Beadle, but the point SAS was trying to make that day wasn't the right time for. -
He's not a ? but he does try to play the middle far too often. For y'all saying how come he doesn't criticize other people he does call out white folks too for their ? , as he went on Phil Jackson just this morning, but the perception that he's more critical of black folks than others is already pervasive so it won't stick out as much.
As for the comments about women I've been very vocal about my hatred for that stupid ? Beadle, but the point SAS was trying to make that day wasn't the right time for.
Real talk dude goes in on everybody but ? dont like when he goes in on them bout some true ? so they call him a ? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Ehhh I don't know if he's a ? or not and I don't care. He's a loudmouth and a blowhard, and his opinion should generally be dismissed. If he's breaking a news story then fine, but if he's giving talking points just ignore that ? .
First reply pretty much nails it. Meaning its pretty clear. This is how i look at it. I realized a long time ago with him and Skip that he has a shtick. Its to remain interesting and provocative. But its a shtick nonetheless. Thats what he does. Nothing to get upset like "did you hear what he said! did you hear what he said!" because its not taken that seriously from the jump. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Joker_De_La_Lover wrote: »
They hear. They're just too stupid to understand. We've been around and around on the use of that word. What it comes down to is that some people simply aren't intelligent enough to make a real point, so they just call names.
U called people stupid then say they too dumb to make a real Point.... ? meet kettle homie
No, that is the point. They are stupid. There is a difference between calling people a name because you just don't want to address what they actually said and calling someone stupid because they are incapable of saying anything of value. I have no problem discussing the merits of these issues with these people, but they are incapable of doing that. All they can do is call names. If you think stupid or dumb are poor descriptors of that kind of behavior, then give me an alternative and we'll go with that. -
Shuffington wrote: »? , nah... more like a Smooth talking New Yorker who knows how to say what he needs to say to
benefit himself.
with that said, I don't disagree with what he said. He has some answers, but It doesn't really mean much coming from him.
i thought he was from philly -
so he's a ? for calling out black people that's consistently ? up their opportunities?
and apologizing for a comment that offended WOMEN?(yes a white woman said something but i also remember him saying his mother AND sister checked him on that ? too)
SAS is a loudmouth and hard to listen to and agree with at times but he's far from a ? -
15:50-17:00 pretty much sums up SAS to me
-
2stepz_ahead wrote: »Shuffington wrote: »? , nah... more like a Smooth talking New Yorker who knows how to say what he needs to say to
benefit himself.
with that said, I don't disagree with what he said. He has some answers, but It doesn't really mean much coming from him.
i thought he was from philly
Nah, he's from Queens.
Philly was where he started out and spent most of his years as a reporter. -
He's not a ? but he does try to play the middle far too often. For y'all saying how come he doesn't criticize other people he does call out white folks too for their ? , as he went on Phil Jackson just this morning, but the perception that he's more critical of black folks than others is already pervasive so it won't stick out as much.
As for the comments about women I've been very vocal about my hatred for that stupid ? Beadle, but the point SAS was trying to make that day wasn't the right time for.
But when he says stuff about black people regardless of whether it was the right time or not he's let it be known that he is unapologetic and doesn't care who's offended. -
5th Letter wrote: »He's not a ? but he does try to play the middle far too often. For y'all saying how come he doesn't criticize other people he does call out white folks too for their ? , as he went on Phil Jackson just this morning, but the perception that he's more critical of black folks than others is already pervasive so it won't stick out as much.
As for the comments about women I've been very vocal about my hatred for that stupid ? Beadle, but the point SAS was trying to make that day wasn't the right time for.
But when he says stuff about black people regardless of whether it was the right time or not he's let it be known that he is unapologetic and doesn't care who's offended.
That doesn't make someone a ? . He might be in the wrong for that, but every ? that's wrong isn't a ? . That's why some in here are saying that the word is overused. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »He's not a ? but he does try to play the middle far too often. For y'all saying how come he doesn't criticize other people he does call out white folks too for their ? , as he went on Phil Jackson just this morning, but the perception that he's more critical of black folks than others is already pervasive so it won't stick out as much.
As for the comments about women I've been very vocal about my hatred for that stupid ? Beadle, but the point SAS was trying to make that day wasn't the right time for.
But when he says stuff about black people regardless of whether it was the right time or not he's let it be known that he is unapologetic and doesn't care who's offended.
That doesn't make someone a ? . He might be in the wrong for that, but every ? that's wrong isn't a ? . That's why some in here are saying that the word is overused.
He's called a ? for his comments like saying if black people dressed a certain way we wouldn't be targeted by race soldiers. -
5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »He's not a ? but he does try to play the middle far too often. For y'all saying how come he doesn't criticize other people he does call out white folks too for their ? , as he went on Phil Jackson just this morning, but the perception that he's more critical of black folks than others is already pervasive so it won't stick out as much.
As for the comments about women I've been very vocal about my hatred for that stupid ? Beadle, but the point SAS was trying to make that day wasn't the right time for.
But when he says stuff about black people regardless of whether it was the right time or not he's let it be known that he is unapologetic and doesn't care who's offended.
That doesn't make someone a ? . He might be in the wrong for that, but every ? that's wrong isn't a ? . That's why some in here are saying that the word is overused.
He's called a ? for his comments like saying if black people dressed a certain way we wouldn't be targeted by race soldiers.
And how does that make him a ? ? You can disagree with him without calling him names. Lots of people believe that. Lots of people believe that if black youth carried themselves in a way that distinguished them from the stereotypical black criminal that they would not have the problems they have. Those people are wrong of course, but wouldn't it be more useful to point out why they are wrong and educate them rather than just calling them ? and dismissing them? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »He's not a ? but he does try to play the middle far too often. For y'all saying how come he doesn't criticize other people he does call out white folks too for their ? , as he went on Phil Jackson just this morning, but the perception that he's more critical of black folks than others is already pervasive so it won't stick out as much.
As for the comments about women I've been very vocal about my hatred for that stupid ? Beadle, but the point SAS was trying to make that day wasn't the right time for.
But when he says stuff about black people regardless of whether it was the right time or not he's let it be known that he is unapologetic and doesn't care who's offended.
That doesn't make someone a ? . He might be in the wrong for that, but every ? that's wrong isn't a ? . That's why some in here are saying that the word is overused.
He's called a ? for his comments like saying if black people dressed a certain way we wouldn't be targeted by race soldiers.
And how does that make him a ? ? You can disagree with him without calling him names. Lots of people believe that. Lots of people believe that if black youth carried themselves in a way that distinguished them from the stereotypical black criminal that they would not have the problems they have. Those people are wrong of course, but wouldn't it be more useful to point out why they are wrong and educate them rather than just calling them ? and dismissing them?
Why would I need to educate a grown man about why he's wrong for saying ? like that? If at his age he doesn't know that it doesn't matter how you dress and that they'll find excuses to target you then there is nothing much i or anyone can say to him.
