Context. The context in which you quoted it was warped to fit your little agenda. Asshole.

To them, this is more evidence of Obama’s “association” with scary black people and militant leftists. Are you buying that, Jay?

Nope.

Right. Because the media wants to know if Obama supports the lyrics in the song. Obama condemned the song. End of story right? Well, not if you’re Sean Hannity or some other wingnut hack. To them, this is more evidence of Obama’s “association” with scary black people and militant leftists. Are you buying that, Jay?

Um, I quoted what you wrote verbatim. Douchebag.

Of course there would be no problem with it. Last week the same set was defending conservative writers/media personalities and their sometimes violently-themed words against liberals, and will now tell you that Ludacris is a degenerate. On the other side, another set was suspicious the conservative writers and will defend Ludacris.

Both deserve defense, IMO.

If Obama got my employees’ votes by appealing to their taste in music, how would that be a bad thing?

We ought to note here that he’d courting the vote of people who probably already agree with much of his program – young people in general and young minorities more particularly. He’d just be increasing the likelihood that those legal voters would turn out on election day, as historically they tend to be no-shows, relative to the older demographics.

If Obama got my employees’ votes by appealing to their taste in music, how would that be a bad thing? You get votes anywhere you can, and appealing to musical tastes is certainly a longstanding political tradition.

Unfortunately for the GOP, their musicians suck.

I find it interesting that “Rap” stems from a white source, originally Woodie Guthrie’s “talking blues,” and the first big “rap” hit was Bob Dylan’s “Subterranean Homesick Blues” in 1964. Both of these men used music to advance political statements, and modern rap or hip-hop is no different. You just don’t agree with the statements.

Do you always blatantly lie like this? I didn’t “argue” anything. It’s pretty common knowledge for anybody with a brain larger than that of a pea (I guess that leaves you out) that Obama has courted the hip-hop community to help increase minority turnout (his goal has been to increase minority turnout 30%. It’s no secret. Perhaps if you people actually knew something about the nominee you support, you’d know this).

presumably because your daily talking points suggested that Obama needs to be accused of being a crypto-thug-gangsta something-or-other.

And there you go with the projection. AGAIN. You should see somebody about that. Apparently you have issues with hip-hop music.

I’m always curious about this kind of response from you Jay. Do you really think you’re serving some totally neutral fact-checking function here and that it’s impossible to read anything else into your statements?

You can read into those statements all you want. You’re the one with issues apparently as you’re “reading something else” in my statements. They’re pretty clear.

You said that Ludacris was getting more attention for his song than Ted Nugent because Ludacris had a highly publicized meeting with Obama.

Actually, I said no such thing. This is what I said:

Ludacris has gotten more attention because of his connection to Barack Obama. The Obama camp has been actively courting the hip-hop community in its effort to grow participation in the black community.

Now if the underlying point is still “so fucking what” then why is Ludacris getting more attention regardless?

Uhhh…I’ve already pointed that out. You see, meeting with hip-hop stars is no big deal. BUT….couple the fact that Obama had these meetings and because Ludacris’s song is called “Politics: Obama Is Here” and in it calls Hillary Clinton an “irrelevant bitch”, says McCain “don’t belong in any chair unless he’s paralyzed” and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see why the media is going to give it more attention than something Nugent shouted out at some concert. This is not all that difficult to comprehend.

But of course, according to you and Jaim I’m just inferring something else.

Cripes.

I’m always curious about this kind of response from you Jay. Do you really think you’re serving some totally neutral fact-checking function here and that it’s impossible to read anything else into your statements?

You said that Ludacris was getting more attention for his song than Ted Nugent because Ludacris had a highly publicized meeting with Obama. Now if the underlying point is still “so fucking what” then why is Ludacris getting more attention regardless?

The fact of the meeting doesn’t in itself explain why Ludacris is getting more attention than Nugent unless one goes on to infer something about Obama and his relationship with Ludacris based on that meeting.

I know you would never infer anything about anything. You are a neutral observer of the facts. My point is that in this case, as in most cases, the facts as observed don’t really explain much when it comes to politics and culture. There’s always something else at work.

Yes, you did. You tried to argue that “The Obama camp has been actively courting the hip-hop community in its effort to grow participation in the black community,” presumably because your daily talking points suggested that Obama needs to be accused of being a crypto-thug-gangsta something-or-other.

Fish, meet barrel.

It’s probably safe to say that Obama has a lock on musicians and entertainers in general come this November but then again, while it was nice to see somebody like Bruce Springsteen do shows supporting Kerry, there’s always the “ZOMG Hollywood libruls!” kind of backlash. And then you had tools like Dave Matthews and Dave Grohl, and honestly, the Republicans are welcome to have those guys.

Heh, heh.
It’s comedy!
It’s irony!

It’s both!

In other words, Obama met with Ludacris, Jay-Z and Kanye West. So fucking what?

Yeah. So fucking what is right. And I never made an issue of Obama meeting with them. I’m through repeating myself.

Wow, Jay. Thanks for the correction and for “stating the facts.” I’m horrified that Obama would meet with someone as radical and dangerous as Ludacris or that he would make any in-roads whatsoever into the degenerate world of rap “music.” I was an Obama supporter until you brought this to my attention. Now I can only question the man’s values and true allegiances to protecting the safety of real Americans. Obviously, my deep liberal desire to be saved by a messianic figure had blinded me the true facts about Obama’s ultimate agenda. Thank you for doing me and your country such a great service by simply “stating the facts.”

In other words, Obama met with Ludacris, Jay-Z and Kanye West. So fucking what?

Guys, you’re losing sight of what I’m talking about. I responded SPECIFICALLY to this comment:

Ted Nugent didn’t get half the attention Ludacris is getting for saying some pretty out there stuff, but he got pretty much ignored.

Ok? I proffered a reason as to why that happened. That’s all. Yet the idiocy starts with people declaring that I’m actually insinuating something much deeper. More CODE WORDS and DOG WHISTLES! Christ, lighten.the.fuck.up.

Even though the simple and obvious rejoinder to such contention has always been “No, you allow two consenting adults to do what they will in a private place. Everything else remains illegal.”

And that’s the whole point (and where the “comparison” nonsense falls short as it is nothing but a deflection). If you start defining things as “rights”, you’re going to have to deal with somebody else saying something else is “their right.” It’s completely illogical to declare that gay marriage is a “right” but that polgyamy is not. After all, there’s consenting adults all around and if its all about “love” then who is the state to say otherwise? You guys never want to deal with the larger issue in defining such things as “rights.” You just stamp your feet say it’s a “right” and declare the debate over.

Right, therefore anyone who votes McCain because of Toby Keith or Charlie Dainels brand of finger-pluckin’, tree-hangin’ wingnuttery is because they’re a repressed minority who’s had it with the man keeping them down. Repent, Y’all!!

I see. They met once, two years ago!

That’s a “connection” allright. I recommend that the Obama campaign denounce and reject Ludacris and everything he has ever done. Sheesh.

or

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

It’s more of the same homophobic nonsense–good God, if we tolerate consensual homosexual sex then we have to tolerate everything!

Even though the simple and obvious rejoinder to such contention has always been “No, you allow two consenting adults to do what they will in a private place. Everything else remains illegal.”