here comes the usual RV freeposts about complete and utter bullshit.

Getting back on topic:

Nas stated clearly that there's a difference between a "bicth" and a "woman". Just like Chris Rock stated there's a difference between Niggers and blacks. This completely crumbles O'Kelly's argument.

Pertaining to Nas's "8th grade education" as he reffers to it - we all know that people can and have educated themselves beyond school - not to mention wisdom and assessment of character. So because nas left the shool system in 8th grade means he's incapable of judging one's character? That's a baseless argument.



Issabelle stanford did win in 1981 - nas definitely incorrectly quoted that. But the refference to Redd? The point still stands. Redd Foxx never won an emy. Red was 'notoriously black' - but all of Mr. O'Kelly's counterpoints are all individuals who were inspired by Redd's style - NOT Redd himself. As a matter of fact, all of Mr O'Kelly's refferences of "stand up black role models" are all blacks who've married white women. He's not factually arguing nas's points stating that nas is contraditing himself. In fact it's Mr. O'Kelly that's contradicting his own self. If he wanted to make the point - he'd state black celebreties that married black and still sold out in alternate ways. Flip Wilson?? That monkey was inches away from black-face and 'yes massa'.

Mr. O'Kelly states that nas isn't neccessarily "real" jus because he raps about women and his own skill. It would seem that this is trying to misdirect and dillute the point. Nas is stating that "selling out" involves compromising ones self - and he claims to haven't have done that. So exactly whis Mr. Kelly getting at? You knew what nas was saying - I doubt someone as educated as he portrays himself to be would make such an obvious mistake about the message to the song he was criticizing.

Nas is owned? I highly doubt it.

__________________