i idolize nikkas like stern who can fukk people over and be like "deal with it"
i idolize nikkas like stern who can fukk people over and be like "deal with it"
so how about "I've never beaten my wife."...?
this..
what was so mind blowing about Stern's question?
all Rome had to do was say he'd never beaten his wife and then call the commissioner a son of a bytch for insinuating such a thing.
This is going over too many of y'all heads.
I can't believe so many people on here are on Stern's nuts. I don't even like Jim Rome like that, but it was nothing wrong with the question he asked. It was a softball question. Rome wasn't going to grill him about the league owning the team. All Stern had to say is it is crazy for people to believe the league would fix the lotto. That would of been the end of the story.
I can't believe so many people on here are on Stern's nuts. I don't even like Jim Rome like that, but it was nothing wrong with the question he asked. It was a softball question. Rome wasn't going to grill him about the league owning the team. All Stern had to say is it is crazy for people to believe the league would fix the lotto. That would of been the end of the story.
The reason this is not a unfair question is a lot of people believe that the lottery is fixed. After the lottery there was a poll at found that the majority of the people who watched the lotto thought it was fixed.
Y'all get too caught up on he "went in", or he's a g. The only thing Stern did is bring more attention to this issue. It was a dumb move. Nobody would of been talking about this interview, or this issue if Stern answered the question like a normal human being. This bring attention back on the league owning the Hornets, and how they blocked The Lakers trade for Paul.
And Rome wins big. His ratings are going to be sky high tomorrow and the rest of the week because of this. Also Rome said he didn't think the lottery was fixed weeks ago, so Stern really went off for no reason.
so school me, wise one.
since when does the burden of proof fall on the individual alleged of something?
Couldn't the same be said for "Was the fix in for the lottery?"no one in here mentioned anything about a rhetorical question, it was about how Rome would look guilty either way that he answered the Stern's question.
no one in here mentioned anything about a rhetorical question, it was about how Rome would look guilty either way that he answered the Stern's question.
you're trying to change the argument.
Couldn't the same be said for "Was the fix in for the lottery?"