Sharpton’s spokesman on rapper: We steadfastly refuse to call this f*ggot a “f*ggot”
posted at 10:45 am on August 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yeah, I know, the asterisks are lame given that I’m quoting him but it’s not worth a round of patented trumped-up blogospheric Fake Outrage™. Do your best to guess the mystery vowel.
Now then, the art of the non-slur. Rapper David Banner criticized Reverend Al’s campaign to clean up hip hop lyrics earlier this week with unintentional irony:
The next time you see Al Sharpton, tell him I said @#*$ him and he can suck my @#*$, ” an animated David Banner told SOHH.com. “I might change the name of my album from The Greatest Story Never Told to @#*$ Al Sharpton. I hate Al Sharpton. This is the kind of @#!* that I’m talking about. They’re killing kids in New Jersey and all across the country and all a @#*$% got to talk about is rap lyrics? @#*$ that about they’re our elders and we gotta respect them. I’m tired of this. They’re like the parents, but the parents are crucifying the kids.
Today came the equally ironic touche:
Kirsten John-Foy, a leader with Sharpton’s National Action Network and the head of his Criminal Justice Initiative, responded with his own scathing remarks.
“From time to time we do encounter people that have sexual fantasies about Reverend Al Sharpton, but they are always women and Crump’s proposition is a first,” he told SOHH in a statement.
“However, in keeping with the National Action Network’s Decency Initiative, I am sure Rev. Sharpton would not call Crump the “N” “B” or “H” word,” Foy continued. “And, despite Crump’s personal request, I am sure Reverend Sharpton would not call him an @#!*%&. He would just pray for him. We at NAN are pro civil rights for everyone, even Levell Crump who has not had a banner year since his debut album in 2003.”
I like how he designates the other three by their first letter but lets ‘er rip on the F-bomb. Nuance.
TMZ confirmed that the statement was issued from Sharpton’s office. It’s the logical next step in Coulter’s slam on Edwards: some of her more shameless and/or dimwitted defenders claimed afterwards that she didn’t call him any names, technically, but simply said she’d have to go to rehab if she did. Uh huh. Now this from Sharpton, which would theoretically justify unleashing every epithet in the book so long as it’s prefaced by “I’m not going to call you…”
When Imus gets back on the air, his first move should be to invite him on to formally apologize. Heh.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
So, now it is dimwitted to take the plain English of what she said at face value.
She never called Edwards a F@ggot. She was making fun of the culture that considers…
Never mind, I’m obviously too dimwitted to explain it to you.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 16, 2007 at 10:50 AM
The above porn damages and dirties your brain. I wish I hadn’t read it.
JiangxiDad on August 16, 2007 at 10:50 AM
I like the asterisks. They’re like pasties.
Blake on August 16, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Also, the picture at the end of your post is not working.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 16, 2007 at 10:53 AM
LOL, this is going to grow legs i can just feel it…
trailortrash on August 16, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Yes, I know. She chose him completely at random. Why, she might have just as well used Ronald Reagan for her point instead and no one would have thought anything of it.
Let’s not start another Coulter debate.
Allahpundit on August 16, 2007 at 10:54 AM
To clarify, “David Banner’s” real name is Levell Crump.
You must have a lousy name (e.g., Tracy Marrow, O’Shea Jackson, Carlton Douglas Ridenhour) to be a rapper; little wonder why they all work under aliases.
P.S. I like f*ggot ’cause the Hot Air filter doesn’t try to turn it into an email address like it does with f@ggot.
saint kansas on August 16, 2007 at 10:57 AM
If you do not want a debate, then you should not take cheap shots.
I am more than prepared to debate this issue, simply because the facts are on my side. The irony is that you call it dimwitted to simply listen to her words and take the plain English meaning of them.
Does this mean that you consider it intelligent to change her words into something she did not say in order to be able to criticise her?
If Ann says such terrible things, why do her critics never criticise what she actually said, but instead always feel the need to embellish it or interpet it.
The beauty of Ann’s words lie in their lack of nuance. She says what she means and means what she says.
And you are, once again, misquoting her. Period.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 16, 2007 at 11:00 AM
There is a segment of the conservative community that like to look down their noses from atop their high horses. The cannot see the beauty of Ann’s remarks as they pertain to shifting the perceived political center back to the right. Don’t get me wrong, these holier-than-thou types have their place, and we need them to occupy it, but attacking Ann instead of supporting the message if not the language, is counter productive to their stake of the moral high ground.
Ann Coulter is the fat kid on the right side of the see-saw shifting the fulcrum back to the right where it belongs, by giving the right a further extreme position that diminishes the effects of the many light weight moonbats that sit on the left side of the see-saw.
csdeven on August 16, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Your the one that brought Coulter into it and labeled “some” of her defenders as “dimwitted” …. but you don’t want another Coulter debate. That’s a bit disingenuous, don’t-cha think ?
Maxx on August 16, 2007 at 11:04 AM
In order to have a debate, your side would have to have some facts to support it. It doesn’t. The last time I read one of these, your side was based on PCness.
Besides, I’d think a good Coulter or Atheism debate will keep “Chocolate Rain” off the topic list.
csdeven on August 16, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Hm. Then maybe might be a good idea to leave out:
Spirit of 1776 on August 16, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Ann Coulter is the fat kid
Yeah, I know, selective quoting incredibly out of context but the image of Ann as “fat” in any manner just blows my mind.
Someone, please, buy that gal a sammich.
Krydor on August 16, 2007 at 11:10 AM
How about an Ann Coulter/Tay Zonday duet of Chocolate Rain?
Blake on August 16, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Aw jeez, not this sh*t again…
Do we really have to have another Coulter slapfight?
Bad Candy on August 16, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Okay, the inconsistency in AP’s comments has been noted 5 times already. Time to stop.
Blake on August 16, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Sharpton versus foul-mouther rappers? Time for popcorn and a ringside seat — this should be fun.
Anton on August 16, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Maybe AP just ‘mis-spoke’. It happens.
countywolf on August 16, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Yeah, I missed the point of the entire thread. Al will either come closer to rational thinking, or he’ll drag out the race card and make it all about the white dominated corporations.
I’m betting on the latter.
csdeven on August 16, 2007 at 11:23 AM
I am already the proud owner of an Ann Coulter talking doll.
I think that it’s a shame that the manufacturer has not offered to “update” the doll with the “f*gg*t” remark.
The trouble with owning a talking Al Sharpton doll is that those kind of toys (if they existed) would already be obsolete even before they’re purchased. Clowns like Al Sharpton say something stupid almost every single day.
CyberCipher on August 16, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Allright, did anybody else get a laugh out of the names of the commenters on the hip hop site?
hypestylez
WHO GOT WEED
$elf Made
Big Smoov
bigsmoovUsuck
krookedAL
u mad al?
Scottie Pimpin
The Playa
SENATOR MICHAEL JORDAN
JESSE GOT A BABYMAMA
YO DADDY
DATZIT
El Negro…
I love it.
Zetterson on August 16, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Fred Thompson dated! MANWHORE!
Heh.
Pablo on August 16, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Can’t argue with that.
PRCalDude on August 16, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Except unlike Coulter, Sharpton won’t be attacked for this, which despite the fact that I think she should have refrained from calling Edwards one (though, had Coulter said, “Isaiah Washington was just sent to rehab for calling a co-worker a f*ggot… Well, if he was sent there for that, I can’t imagine what they’d do to me if I commented on Edwards,” I can’t imagine anyone having a solid complaint), makes the criticism of her seem ridiculous.
If it’s OK to use a word, then it’s OK to use it no matter what your politics are.
Esthier on August 16, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Ahem… Allah was writing… not speaking.
Maxx on August 16, 2007 at 11:38 AM
I’d rather listen to a baby crying, car horns blaring, and sit in a stin-filled port-a-potty than listen to this joker speak. I change the channel every time he’s on, because he’s a waste of space.
madmonkphotog on August 16, 2007 at 11:51 AM
You mean the rap lyrics some kids grow up with that dehumanize people and glorify killing “ho’s” and cops?
taznar on August 16, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Allahpundit sayz:
“…some of her more shameless and/or dimwitted defenders…”
But….
“Let’s not start another Coulter debate. ”
I stand with JayHaw Phrenzie (”Never mind, I’m obviously too dimwitted to explain it to you.”) and csdevin (”In order to have a debate, your side would have to have some facts to support it. It doesn’t. The last time I read one of these, your side was based on PCness.”)
This much I do know: Liberals absolutely hate Coulter. She’s as much of a lighting rod as Bush is to most of them. Why? Because she brutally exposes their hypocrisy and their sanctimoniousness and eviscerates their arguments as the disloyal nonsense it is. And I think that her doing such is “A Good Thing ™”
I’m not really concerned that you don’t agree. But since you took the first swing as us “shameless and/or dimwitted defenders,” I feel it necessary to reply.
One of Coulter’s most accurate statements about liberals is that they are “savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie for sport.” [Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]
Does anybody here disagree with this statement?
And does anybody disagree with the following quantification of liberalism’s disloyalty?
In connection with the “F” word, maybe you should reconsider your objections to her use of if. After all, liberals don’t shy at accusing us on the right of being gays. In fact they go over board and use the terms as just another slander term and expression of hatred of us every chance they get:
“Liberals sheltered communists, Hoover was on to them, so they called him a fag. With precisely as much evidence as they had for McCarthy’s alleged homosexuality, the left giddily “gay”-baited J. Edgar Hoover. Their sensitivity to homophobia was matched only by their sensitivity to the civil rights of Japanese.”
[Ann Coulter, "Liberal alternative patriotism," 7/2/2003, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33394
"In 2003, the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival put on a musical comedy about Hoover's apocryphal homosexuality in "J. Edgar! The Musical," written by Harry Shearer and Tom Leopold. While slandering a dead man with impunity, rich celebrities – in Aspen, Colo., no less – paid tribute to their own dauntless courage. For the second year in a row, the festival celebrated the First Amendment, giving its "Freedom of Speech Award" to millionaire leftist Michael Moore, in an event hosted by Joe Lockhart, former press secretary to a president whose IRS audited people who engaged in free speech against him. The executive director of the festival, Stu Smiley, said the purpose of the festival was "to reacquaint ourselves with people who have sacrificed for their right to express themselves." "
[Ann Coulter, Ibid.]
A long time ago, I stopped being “nice” to libeals. Oh, I’ll be civil and polite and paste a smile on my face when dealing with them. But I push back. And so does Coulter. This bogus “civility” debate over the “F” word that us “shameless and/or dimwitted” have engaged in with you ought to stop. And you should stop calling your readers names, too.
Some people in WWII America didn’t like George S. Patton either. But like Patton, Coulter is an attack dog, OUR attack dog.
georgej on August 16, 2007 at 12:26 PM
My thoughts exactly.
Rick on August 16, 2007 at 12:27 PM
I assume he’s talking about illegals. This is just too good to be true! I’ll overlook all the black on black crime if this gains legs and wakes up some folks!
SouthernGent on August 16, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Hey Allah, why do you have such a hard-on for Ann??? What you say about her is completely wrong, and further, I’d wager that you’ve never read any of her latest books. You do seem to have a comprehension problem. I think you’ve been living in New York too long. Stick to photoshopping.
Andy in Agoura Hills on August 16, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Who does Sharpton pray to? Rolex????
Just shows that anyone with a color printer and five dollars can get a certificate to be a reverend.
Hening on August 16, 2007 at 12:37 PM
LOLOLOLOL. Oh, my sides hurt!
mram on August 16, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I LOVE it!
Al Sharpton tries to destroy Don Imus claiming he was motivated to take a stand for decency and civility in media. He’s called out on his hypocrisy by those who dare to point out that he has never said one word about language used in rap music. In order to appear legitimate, he finally speaks out against rap lyrics. Now this rapper won’t give him a pass like the white liberals do, basically telling Al to screw himself – which elicits a response from his spokesperson that exposes Sharpton’s complete lack of legitimacy on the issue. The best part about it is that there will be more rappers who will tell him where to go (and what to do!).
So in trying to ruin a man’s life for his own evil purposes, Al is forced to prove his integrity on an issue, making him a whole set of new enemies from within his own community and further eroding his moral authority with Black America. Moral of the story: Don’t take up a crusade unless you are down for the struggle, Al!
There ain’t no future in your frontin’.
Dork B. on August 16, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Coulter is an American hero like Limbaugh and Malkin. Both should be up on Mt. Rushmore. They would have been founding fathers 225 years ago.
Frankly, I’d like to just win, both the war on Islamic terrorism and the domestic culture and sedition wars, not be PC or chummy with the enemy, either one. Tired of spending my life glued to a f’in PC.
Kill the enemy. Go Coulter!
JiangxiDad on August 16, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Can’t argue with that.
PRCalDude on August 16, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I can argue with that. Who is the they he is referring to?
We would be much more appropriate and go towards solving the problem. The profanity in Hip-Hop Culture is not only the curse words but in the glorification of violence and misogony.
12thman on August 16, 2007 at 1:01 PM
ps: To those defending Ann Coulter. The issue here isn’t if you agree with her or not. Who cares? …and in fact, most people here do agree with her the majority of the time even if they don’t agree with how she gets her point across.
The issue is pretending she didn’t insult Edwards by using the word f*ggot when she clearly did.
To JayHaw Phrenzie, I think it’s you who needs to take a closer look (again) at what she said:
hmmmm… take out Edwards and put in your name. Take out f*ggot and put in a degrading slur someone could use against you.
Can you not see how if how a co-worker said something like that about you it would be an insult?
12thman on August 16, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Can we make a list of people who simply shouldn’t be in the news or should have no effect on public discourse whatsoever?
Al Sharpton
Geraldo
Chris Matthews
Keith Olbermann
Trent Lott
Linda Chavez
Chertoff
Rosie O’Donnell (but she is already out to pasture)
Jesse Jackson (like Rosie, he is out to pasture)
The list will go on and on. Nothing but hucksters and snake oil salesmen.
Montana on August 16, 2007 at 1:22 PM
I think its Latinos.
PRCalDude on August 16, 2007 at 1:25 PM
And I agree, Allahpundit missed the not-so-subtle point Ann made about our PC culture when she did the whole Edwards thing. In fact he engages in what she was pointing out…Surprising. It’s reminiscent of a point missed when HA aired the “If Patton Where Here” video. He missed that point altogether!
But I guess I miss points too–and I don’t have to find news stories to post on a web site to keep all of us vulture posters busy, I get to be the peanut gallery and take cheap shots. So thanks Allah and HA staff!
Montana on August 16, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Once again, Ann’s critics can’t resist changing what she says.
As I said above…
Her quote stands on it’s own. It has two edges
1) It mocks the liberal attempt to censor speech through PC
2) Edwards is an effeminate, preening little, well you know.
Since some people are English challenged, she never stated that Edwards is a f*ggot. She phrased it in such a way that the listener was free to infer that on their own.
With all of the available evidence (see #2 above), it should not have been surprising that many people infered this.
Neither Ann nor I think that Edwards has sex with men, but he is the dictionary defintion of preening, fawning Metrosexual that has his wife (mommy figure) fight his battles for him. Judging by the reaction to this comment, most of America gets this.
I agree wholeheartedly with this post.
Ann’s next book is right around the corner. :)
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 16, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I’ll admit – Ann Coulter certainly implied that Silky was “less than manly.” Of course, his actions ever since have proven her to be true.
For all of you who were outraged at the level of disrespect directed at him, you have to remember – he’s an adult.
Edwards is certainly capable of standing up to Ann Coulter…Elizabeth Edwards, that is. Zing!
DORK B. LOVES ANN COULTER FOREVER TRUE LOVE ALWAYS!!!!
Dork B. on August 16, 2007 at 1:45 PM
I was going to reply to JayHaw Phrenzie’s last post, but it turns out I might get banned if I use the words ‘disingenuous’ or ‘moron,’ so I’m kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about JayHaw.
12thman on August 16, 2007 at 1:46 PM
and to Dork, I’m not outraged at the level of disrespect directed to Edwards, that’s not the point.
The point is that she did insult him and imply that he’s a f*ggot. Period.
Just like Sharpton’s aide does above. You don’t get a free pass to call someone anything you want by “wrapping” it in safe language.
12thman on August 16, 2007 at 1:48 PM
I agree with you. She did imply that he was a f*g. Stated in the first sentence of my post.
The reason she gets a free pass from me is because I love her and agree with everything she says.
I’m her shameless, dimwitted defender.
Dork B. on August 16, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Exactly, now you get it, for example I was going to comment about what your post says about you, but if you use the words “sanctimonious” and “asswipe” you might get banned as well. So it seems I can’t reply to you either.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 16, 2007 at 2:03 PM
lol. I’m not sure exactly what the characteristics of an a**wipe are and I have no idea where I may have been sanctimonious?
The funny thing is I agree with what Ann said. (Although I do wish she had used the word sissy but f*ggot was needed to bring the joke home and link it with Grey’s Anatomy so, oh well!)
The only thing I disagree with is those who like to pretend she didn’t insult Edwards when that is exactly what she did.
12thman on August 16, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Wow, since when did the Hot Air comment become the official Ann Coulter Fan Club? I like her too, but is she really worth all these comments?
cvasquez on August 16, 2007 at 2:25 PM
When he’s angry, does “David Banner” become the Incredible Hulk?
Bigfoot on August 16, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Is it certain from the article that he dropped the “F-bomb”? (I remember the days that used to be a four-letter word, but never mind that.) According to the webpage, the phrase in question is, “And, despite Crump’s personal request, I am sure Reverend Sharpton would not call him an @#!*%&.” Call me a stickler for details, but “an” does not go before that particular epithet. Is the error the “an” or SOHH’s interpretation of “@#!*%&”?
calbear on August 16, 2007 at 2:45 PM
So?
She was right.
Period.
IntheNet on August 16, 2007 at 3:02 PM
People aren’t defending Ann, they are defending the common sense right to call a spade a spade. I am tired of all the “wounded” souls limping around on the right and the left.
Buncha sissies.
Montana on August 16, 2007 at 3:24 PM
…? What do you mean “so”? That was the whole point of this debate.
For the millionth time neither AP nor I were discussing the veracity of Ann Coulter’s assessment of Edwards. We were both simply pointing out that it is disingenuous for her, her defenders or anyone using similar tacticts to pretend they aren’t insulting their subject using profanity or epithets when they clearly are.
To say “yeah but its true!!!1!11″ has no relevance to the debate at hand.
12thman on August 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM
I agree in part with your posturing here. Coulter’s artful phrasing dis in fact contain a slur, but she did not directly attack John Edwards.
However, after listening to Ann Coulter being interviewed about this fiasco, I am left with the distinct impression that she doesn’t care if she offends anybody. She uses language that offends a group which is not the object of her scorn here.
This became apparent to me when she was interviewed by Al Rantel, a gay Republican. Al is rock solid on the right, but the interview was awkward at best. Although he did not rail against Coulter’s use of the term faggot, it became apparent that her barb had unintended victims.
The difference between Coulter and Sharpton’s spokeshole is that Ann controls the nuance and wields to her commercial advantage and to rally alleigance. Kirsten John-Foy, on the other hand, seems to have lashed out in an attempt to joust with a rapper.
It seems that Al Sharpton has an achilles heel with regards to his street cred. Even though is one of the most media savvy blowhards ever, he can’t handle his street juice being challenged. I have to wonder if he did not craft this statement himself as a means to shift the discussion from his Imus failings to one wherein he could now compare himself to Ann Coulter.
Although I took AP physics in high school, I still have trouble balancing a fork on my dinner plate. I do remember that the fulcrum is the point at which a lever pivots. If the fulcrum is further to the right, wouldn’t that give the left side of the seesaw greater leverage?
I appreciate the passion, but I just can’t justify offending some third party because my political adversaries also offend that third party while attacking me. Gays, agree with their lifestyle or not, do not deserve such cavalier rancor. Yes, many gays are liberal. Yes, many are very liberal. Doesn’t matter. If you accept this premise, then you are choosing to offend people you don’t know to be deserving.
This reminds me of people that justify their use of the word n*gger by offering up the dictionary definition, which defined it as “an ignorant person.” One of my close friends was a hardcore punker. He thought it was the height of irony to call cops, “niggers.” He offered the tortured dictionary logic.
Incidentally, many dictionaries have changed their definition to reflect reality.
Do your assumptions usually pan out? Shall I repeat the tired but apropos assumption refrain?
I have listened to enough rap music to damn a thousand souls. Often, critics of the music and the lifestyle, ascribe their own notions and interpretations to rappers and their lyrics. Often, the critics are right. Sometimes, however, their own reality skews their perceptions.
Quite simply, I don’t think David Banner is referring to Latinos. True, there are racial tensions in many areas in which demographics have shifted to favor Latinos.
But there is no rapper alive, with any commercial value who takes sides in the black/brown tensions. Rappers such as The Game, Snoop with ties to actual gang sets, do not take sides. Even in their videos, you will see these rappers allied with Latinos. The same can be said of Latino rappers who desire marketability.
David Banner has not seen the success of rappers like Nas, Eminem or Snoop, but he does tour a lot. You can’t go to places like LA or Texas if you’re gonna alienate anybody…not even whites.
I guess we can learn two things from this statement. So because Edwards is fawining and preening, it’s ok to call him faggot? So all homosexuals are fawning and preening? The assertion is absurd and quite unevolved.
Furthermore, what do you really know of John Edwards? How much can you learn about someone’s home life, habits and the dinner table or bedroom, from a few Hardball interviews and presidential debates? Granted, the youtube video was quite telling. But still, how much do you know about him?
Lastly, what response gives you the grand insight into what all of America thinks? Did you survey all of the comments at all of the Tribune and Gannet newspapers? Did you do a phone survey? Maybe an AOL chatroom bot culled the information for you. Please advise exactly how you came to such a conclusion. Then I will contact my brother, a patent attorney, and you should be well on your way to billions.
Rant out. Typos in.
The Race Card on August 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM
*does
The Race Card on August 16, 2007 at 3:51 PM
*assumption
The Race Card on August 16, 2007 at 3:51 PM
As if this wasn’t meant for comment fodder . . :P
BTW, the technique was first put into play and politically back somewhere inbetween January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 16, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Once again Allah has played us all like a slide trombone in a military marching band. Just like it says in “Administrative Blogging for Dummies” Chapter 3, paragraph 7, “… in times of low traffic due to Global Warming* [aka *summertime) try insulting your core audience with such terms as shameless and/or dimwitted, and reap the rewards of increased traffic as commenters lash out at said administrator for the shamelessness and dimwittedness of said comment. Works every time !
But what can we do? We are slaves to the superior intellect of Allah and he has an absolute right to say what he said, just like Annie.
Maxx on August 16, 2007 at 4:01 PM
I agree with Ann Coulter in regard to Edwards. She was very precise with her prose.
Not disingenuous at all… Matter of fact I urge you to read a document on this matter; the Bill of Rights… perhaps you’ve heard of it? I specifically steer you to First Amendment part of that document wherein free speech is prominently noted. If you can’t handle such descriptive terms in an environment of free speech within a political rally (where Ann uttered the word) where all adults were present, then perhaps you would be more comfortable in the Middle East where fatwahs are issued for users of special objectionable words and all public rhetoric is strictly monitored….
IntheNet on August 16, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Rappers are consistently hypocritical. Aside from Chuck D, Mos Def and Common, I would venture to say that hypocrisy is as common as violence to most rappers.
This little gem by David Banner points out that Sharpton is really seen for a fool from any angle:
While I appreciate the critique of Sharpton, I can’t handle him calling Sharpton a pimp when one of his most recent heavy rotation hits is called Like a Pimp. If you hear the lyrics, then you will know that he is not cleaning up the hood, despite his proud assertions.
The Race Card on August 16, 2007 at 4:16 PM
What in the world does the First Amendment have to do with this? No one ever said she didn’t have the legal right to say it. All that I am saying is that her statement was an insulting to Edwards and that those who say it wasn’t are not being honest.
What about that statement isn’t making sense to you?
12thman on August 16, 2007 at 4:27 PM
s/insulting/insult/g
12thman on August 16, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Maxx on August 16, 2007 at 4:41 PM
coul·ter (kōl’tər)
n. A blade or wheel attached to the beam of a plow that makes vertical cuts in the soil in advance of the plowshare.
(that’s about as pertinent to this discussion as the text of the First Amendment)
12thman on August 16, 2007 at 4:49 PM
“shameless and/or dimwitted…”
Okaaaay then. So tell us, oh wise AP, what is on your mind when you call Edwards “Silky”? My guess-and being so dimwitted, this is very hard for me-is that you are implying he’s just a bit short of manly? If the men in what is left of the conservative side had half the balls Coulter does…
Great going. Bash your readers, and trash Coulter. Again. And here i thought you couldn’t ever top your defense of Obama…
JWS on August 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Fun with photos
The Race Card on August 16, 2007 at 5:12 PM
You don’t think that the thing that gives you freedom of speech is pertinent to a debate about freedom of speech? That’s odd.
Maxx on August 16, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Tell me Maxx, what parties are having a debate about freedom of speech?
Please point out which side is saying what Ann Coulter (and Kirsten John-Foy) is or should be illegal?
I’ll pause here while you look that up…
We’re not having a debate about freedom of speech because no one is arguing their speech isn’t protected. All that I have said over and over from my first comment is that it is still an insult even if you preface it with “I shouldn’t really say this”.
That fact has absolutlely nothing to do with the constitution.
12thman on August 16, 2007 at 5:19 PM
We really should pick our battles more wisely.
Arguing in favor of usage of the term faggot does not serve any purpose. It does not forward a Republican platform in any meaningful way. And it certainly is not a free speech issue; Nobody is refuting Ann Coulter’s right to offend.
One more time: Many homosexuals would likely find this term offensive. The original discussion does not have anything to do with homosexuality, unless you subscribe to the most stereotypical view of gay men. Therefore, using the term reflects a need or desire to offend or attack gays.
You need to ask yourself: Are you ok with using very offensive language towards a group which has not provoked you in this particular circumstance? If you are ok with that, then don’t complain next time some lib attacks Christians, country boys, Republicans or any group, directly or obtusely.
I can handle a little mudslinging, but I have no desire to lie with pigs. I expect Republicans to rise above the crap because it stinks worse and sticks longer when its on us.
The Race Card on August 16, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Back to that idiot Sharpton. Why don’t we all agree to simply ignore him? All civilized humans should exclude him from any discussion about anything period. If Hannity or O’Reilly want to have him on to “shake things up” and try to get ratings, let them. I change the channel when Sharpton, Jesse, Geraldo, etc come on any show. It’s not like the act is ever going to change…
JWS on August 16, 2007 at 5:46 PM
12thman on August 16, 2007 at 5:19 PM
I’m not opposing to you 12thman. Someone mentioned the First Amendment and I posted it as a reference. But you said that Ann’s comment was an insult… and I agree. And my point is simply that she had every right to say it, insult or not. The First Amendment applies as much to the RIGHT as it does to the LEFT, and this is where I think the HotAir (as much as I love them) staff got it wrong. They could have said.
I think Ann Coulter was wrong to imply Edwards was a F—t, but she had a RIGHT to say it.
And then they could have sat down and shut up and not attacked the primary culture warrior of the RIGHT.
We should not play into the hands of the LEFT, free speech is for everyone… not just them. HotAir would do well to learn from one of its close associates:
Maxx on August 16, 2007 at 5:53 PM
And Banner makes a point about the Newark shootings. I haven’t seen all the usual suspects (Jackson, Sharpton, those douches from the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam), and I can only guess as to why… because the suspects weren’t WHITE. Of course I didn’t need this case to prove that, black people kill each other every day in this country and they don’t hype each case. But when whores (clearly from the start) falsely accuse Duke lacrosse players of rape, they’re all up in arms (though admittedly Sharpton wasn’t out there with the real loons on that one). And as we know, they never said a peep when those 5 savages murdered and sexually assaulted the two white college kids in Tennessee in something out of a horror movie.
RightWinged on August 16, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Dude, that’s Bruce Banner
SouthernDem on August 16, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Ha! Leave O’Shea Jackson out of this.
ackrite55 on August 16, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Using “banner” to put “Banner” down was a deft little twist, especially coming as it did in the midst of such hammer-blows. Given the target and the occasion, the comeback as a whole seems spot on. Sharpton got the better of this exchange, to such an extent that, for some time, people will think twice before calling him out again with such coarse sexual language. And having thought twice, I think the Rev. Sharpton and Mr. Crump-Banner can both svck my d1ck.
Kralizec on August 16, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Don’t feed the
trollmoderatorurbancenturion on August 16, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Not on TV, it isn’t…
urbancenturion on August 16, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Follow this to see what happens when ignorance tries to battle ignorance
Zaire67 on August 16, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Zaire67 on August 16, 2007 at 11:21 PM
I was trying to make a comment with a link to BET. But I can’t figure out how to establish a link. Always comes out blank.
I’m going to watch America’s Funniest Home Videos, maybe I’ll see someone that’s dumber than I.
Zaire67 on August 16, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Pablo shoots, Pablo scores!
Freelancer on August 17, 2007 at 12:58 AM
You are right, it isn’t perfect. My point is that the perception of the center of anything, in this case the political spectrum, is defined by it’s extremes. If the most extreme person we have on the right is, for the sake of argument, sean hannity. The extreme left is kos, rosie Moore, etc. The middle of those two extremes is somewhere around Obama (I guess, but definitely towards the left). When we add Ann as the extreme right, the difference between Ann and Kos, shifts to the right. Without Ann in the mix, Sean is extreme, and not attractive to the casual observer. You add Ann into the mix, and all of a sudden, Sean doesn’t seem so extreme, thus closer to the center and more acceptable to the casual observer.
All this is based on my assumption that MOST people (who are not political junkies like us) want to find a centrist leaning right position. So, they look at the two extremes and find the center, thus defining those who occupy that “center” as centrists, yet to those of us in the know, those “centrists” are actually socialists.
I hope I’m making that clear.
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Ooof. I stand corrected.
SouthernDem on August 17, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Well if you’re going to respond to someone, you might as well be totally clear and logical. Excellent breakdown!
The Race Card on August 17, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Comment pages: