I Got 99 Problems But Jay-Z Ain't One

Roy Edroso catches Human Events attacking Barack Obama over his links to the "other Jeremiah Wrights"—hip-hop stars.

Besides Jay-Z, Obama has also won support from rap mogul Russell Simmons, rapper Nas, whose new album is titled “N-----“ and 9/11 conspiracy theorist Mos Def.

It’s high time the media ask some tough questions. Why has Obama collaborated with rappers? Is he familiar with their words? How could he not be? The senator’s spokesperson said that when he and Ludacris met the two men found common ground on AIDS prevention. How do you find common ground on sexual behavior with someone who calls women “b------?”

Have any rappers donated to his campaign? Will he return the money? Why has he not renounced support from rappers? Is this going to take 20 years like it did with Reverend Wright?

Are we really going to play this game? OK, then: I'm waiting for the Human Events expose on McCain's endorsement from a porn star.

Yes, I understand the larger point—that Obama endorses artists who are poisoning young minds, etc. On this i'm also with Edroso:

Suppose we apply this root-and-branch approach to country music. From the old murder ballads through the works of modern-era superstars, we can see a normative attitude toward drink, drugs, and violence against women. Many country songs promote alcoholism, loyalty to anti-social homies, and brawling. Even the female stars are getting in on the act, a sure sign of social breakdown.

The argument, I guess, is that they don't call women "bitches." Yawn.

UPDATE: I'll keep all my Obama shilling (or anti-stupid-argument shilling) in this post. From an emailer to Jonah Goldberg.

The next time the Obama campaign repeats the line that he was only 8 years old when Bill Ayers was busy planting bombs, perhaps they should be reminded that Trent Lott was only 7 when Strom Thurmond ran for President.

What tripped up Lott, remember, was not praise for Strom Thurmond, but the wish that Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. If he'd been, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years." As the scandal rolled on, it came out that Lott had said some version of this multiple times. So if we find Obama saying on multiple occasions that America would have been better off if the Weather Underground had overthrown the government in 1973, then we can make the comparison. Not before.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I like the way the article called out Vanilla Ice, Third Base, and House of Pain.

    Oh, wait....

  • Guy Montag||

    Are we really going to play this game? OK, then: I'm waiting for the Human Events expose on McCain's endorsement from a porn star.

    Okay, now he has my support.

  • blacklisted||

    I hate Obama but I thought this was reason magazine not fox news. who cares who supports him, attack his vague positions and messages. logical fallacies are not good arguments

  • Elemenope||

    So if we find Obama saying on multiple occasions that America would have been better off if the Weather Underground had overthrown the government, then we can make the comparison. Not before.

    Exactly.

    It still blows me away that people would think to question the *Patriotism* of sitting US Senators running for President. I mean, seriously, how demented do you have to be before you start claiming that particular senators secretly hate America? How demented do you have to be before you claim that a presidential candidate of any major political party hates the country that he/she is seeking to lead?

  • matt||

    blacklisted, did you read the post? It wasn't that subtle.

  • TallDave||

    Yeah, this is pretty silly.

    The whole gangsta rap phenomenon goes right back to the War on Drugs. You create these 10,000% profit margins and a black market in which the most violent entrepeneurs are the most successful because there's no recourse to the law, then we're all surprised when kids from the ghetto all look to the gangsters with the bling. Mike Gray's book on this is excellent.

    Music reflects society's ills, it doesn't create them.

  • Taktix®||

    Who the fuck is Third Base?

    Seriously though, I am 99% sure the writer for Human Events didn't know any rapper's names until he/she googled them for the article.

    Wait, isn't Human Events the rag Ann Coulter is on? Why do they matter?

  • ||

    Taktix gets the Gas Face!

    (80s

  • ||

    Er, (80s rap group. Three white guys. Dissed MC Hammer before it was cool.

  • TallDave||

    You know, I used to laugh when I saw the "druggie gets busted for reporting his stash stolen" stories. Then I started to realize this is precisely the essential breakdown of law and order the War on Drugs has created in our society, and now those stories seem tragically symbolic (ok, they're still funny tho).

  • Neil||

    Joe its not racist I bet theyd call out Eminem.

  • Episiarch||

    What about McCain's association with MC Pee Pants, Little Brittle, and Sir Loin? Fucking hypocrites.

  • ||

    Joe its not racist I bet theyd call out Eminem.

    Then why didn't they?

    Actually, Eminem was very loudly against Bush in the last election, and backed Kerry. The Republicans said nada. There were a number of black rappers who backed him, too. For some reason, they didn't want to tell that story. As opposed to this year.

  • Episiarch||

    Neil, get it right. It's not Eminem, it's The Real Slim Shady.

  • Neil||

    Whatever Joe Obama is the real racist hate-filled bigget in this election, and only his deluded followers think otherwise.

  • ||

    Yawn.......

  • Elemenope||

    Neil, I've been meaning to ask.

    What are your views on women voting and working full-time jobs?

  • Neil||

    Elemenope its a free market economy they can work where they want when they want.

    Of course they can vote WTF this isnt 1800.

  • ||

    Third Bass

  • Rick H.||

    I'll have one hate-filled bigget, and a small coffee, please.

  • ||

    Actually, it's 3rd Bass.

  • matt||

    "Neil":

    Phonetic spelling FTW!

  • ||

    Ah, the Real Racists.

    Has anyone noticed a pattern regarding who starts talking about the Real Racists, and when?

  • Wigglesworth||

    Whatever Joe Obama is the real racist hate-filled bigget in this election


    Who is this biggetted Joe Obama?

  • Youtube to the rescue!||

    Who the fuck is Third Base?

    This is 3rd Bass

    So is this

  • Neil||

    Yeah he is a real racist Joe.

    A real racist that has a hate-filled bigget as his "spiritual mentor" for 20+ years.

    A real racist that attended the anti-white, anti-asian, anti-semetic black supremacist Million Man March led by the black supremacist Muslim Louis Farakkahn.

    A real racist who despises the white side of his family and throws his grandma under the bus in a speech.

    As Obama's buddy would say his "chickens are coming home to roost" LOL!

  • Wigglesworth||

    Of course they can vote WTF this isnt 1800.


    In 1800 women and blacks couldn't vote. Neil heaven!

  • ||

    Dear Neil,

    B-I-G-O-T.

    luv,

    joe

  • ||

    And don't forget McCain's endorsement from a drug trafficker (aka the porn star).

  • Neil||

    Ok Joe well what do you think of your golden boy attending a Muslim Black Supremacist march?

  • Episiarch||

    B-I-G-O-T

    joe, shhhh. "Bigget" is classic.

  • ||

    Dissed MC Hammer before it was cool.

    There was a time when dissing MC Hammer wasn't cool?

    It still blows me away that people would think to question the *Patriotism* of sitting US Senators running for President. I mean, seriously, how demented do you have to be before you start claiming that particular senators secretly hate America? How demented do you have to be before you claim that a presidential candidate of any major political party hates the country that he/she is seeking to lead?

    For realz. Obama should say, "If I don't like this country, why the hell didn't I sell out with my Harvard Law degree? I could be making my current annual salary in 2 weeks, but instead I want to help this country. I'd be John Edwards or Cindy McCain rich right now, instead of being the least wealthy of the presidential candidates."

  • whiskey||

    When is Killface going to be called out for being associated with this.

    This is serious

  • ||

    B-I-G-O-T.

    Apparently, bigget is slang for white anti-black racist.

    Not that Neil was using the term correctly.

  • TallDave||

    Of course, all that said, if any candidate is endorsed by Rick Ashley I will be forced to vote against them.

    Some things are just too monstrous to tolerate.

  • ||

    Ok Joe well what do you think of your golden boy attending a Muslim Black Supremacist march?

    I think that people like you are going to work very hard to convince the public that the Million Man March was a black supremacist event, and that Barack Obama's participation in it was incredibly important.

    I think you risk a serious backlash if you push the racial angle too much.

  • Neil||

    "I think that people like you are going to work very hard to convince the public that the Million Man March was a black supremacist event"

    It wasnt? Please explain.

  • Episiarch||

    Well, Dave, I guess you'll be voting against McCain then?

  • Neil||

    BTW they have a photo of him there, its going to be like the John Kerry/Jane Fonda photo LOL!

    Goodbye Reagan Democrats.

  • Bingo||

    This is going to be the dumbest election season ever.

  • Oddity||

    Well, Dave, I guess you'll be voting against McCain then?

    Views: 7,679,502


    That's a lot of anti-McCain voters!

  • ||

    It wasnt? Please explain.

    Nah, but I will talk about the war and the economy for a while. Did you see that Gallup recorded the highest level of opposition to invading Iraq since it began polling? Or that oil is up to $118 a barrel?

    If you have a great deal to say about some march that happened 15 years ago, you can do so. I don't.

  • Episiarch||

    This is going to be the dumbest election season ever.

    Bingo, Bingo.

  • ||

    Wheelchair-Bound Teen Hit by Bush Protester

    I'm against the war, but beating up a 18-year-old with cerebral palsy is a bit beyond the pale.

  • Neil||

    Joe the economy goes in cycles this has been happening since you were in diapers and of course oil is up in price theirs more demand Bush just cant wave a magic wand and fix it.

    But its cute how liberals think the President can wave a magic wand and fix everything.

  • Neil||

    As to the war The Surge is working and we just won a huge victory in Basra! Patreaus is one of the greatest generals ever.

  • ||

    I have no problem talking about Obama's "friends", but why doesn't anyone talk about McTortures friends?

    They are a very, very, very interesting crowd. Equal time for freaks I say.

    I can't say for sure, but I'm betting that Mc has a few more freaks in his closet than Obama.

    It would be interesting coverage, covering the kinds of things that Mc's supporters like and do, and say.

    You usually have to dig pretty deep on these here internet tuuby things to find out. I wonder why we know so much about Obies "friends", and so little about Mc's.

  • ||

    OK, that was a lie. I don't actually wonder why we know so much about Obie's friends and not Mc's.

  • Devil||

    I'm against the war, but beating up a 18-year-old with cerebral palsy is a bit beyond the pale.



    It was a metaphor for invading and bombing the hell out of a defenseless third-world country in the name of "liberation"

  • Elemenope||

    Of course they can vote WTF this isnt 1800.

    I didn't ask whether they *could* vote. I was asking you whether you thought they *should* be able to vote.

    Because I'm dying to know, in your universe of clear moral opposites, whether you come down on the fundie/fascist/mulleted hick (anti-vote) or pinko/comsymp/effete well-manicured liberal (pro-vote) side of the bright line.

    I want to know if you are a secret commie inside, Neil. It's okay if you are; you are among people who care.

  • Neil||

    Yes the should vote every adult citizen who is not a felon should be able to vote.

    I believe in a color-blind society, unlike Obama and his friends.

  • Neil||

    And unlike you I think Iraqis should be able to vote and have Democracy, too!

  • ||

    Joe the economy goes in cycles this has been happening since you were in diapers

    Long before then, actually.

    But what's funny is that, this time, we are supposed to be on the upswing. We had the low nadir of the ordinary business cycle in 2001, and were recovering - weakly, but steadily and for a long period - ever since then, up until 2007. The "real economy" - manufacturing, consumer spending, business services and stuff - actually kept growing for a while after the housing crash/IBD collapse, but then the damage from the financial sector dragged down the real economy, too.

    But its cute how liberals think the President can wave a magic wand and fix everything. Ah, good point - since it isn't FAIR for the incumbent party to take the blame for a lousy economy, that means it won't happen in the election. Yes, that's precisely how it works.

    *pat pat*

  • Neil||

    Yeah well Joe once the public sees the liberal Democrat Party "solutions" they are going to stick with the GOP.

    Liberal Democrats think they can stop business from going overseas by making it harder for them to do business at home.

    Liberal Democrats think raising taxes in a recession recession is the right thing to do.

    Liberal Democrats think government spending should go through the roof while we go back to protectionism at home and leave free trade agreements.


    We tried liberalnomics before , and all we got was inflation, recession, gas lines, and stagnation. America doesn't want to go back to 1979.

  • Neil||

    Since Ronald Reagan changed our thinking about economics weve only had two very mild recessions.

  • ||

    You don't read a lot of issue pollinig, do you, Neil?

  • ||

    But its cute how conservatives think the President can wave a magic wand and fix everything [related to terrorism].

  • Neil||

    Ok Joe send a poll to me where Americans say they want higher taxes.

    Why dont we just set up a "Tax Me More" fund and then we can see how many prefer to pay more in taxes? LOL!

    You can start Joe. I hear the IRS takes checks or money orders.

  • ||

    Since Ronald Reagan changed our thinking about economics

    I defy you to name a single Republican presidential candidate who made Republican economic policy a major part of his general election campaign.

    Reagan and Bush ran on Law and Order, culture war, and foreign policy. Dole ran on culture war and Law and Order. Bush ran on culture war and "compassionate conservatism" the first time, and on foreign policy and culture war the second.

    And now, the Republicans have nominated a RINO who talks about how little he understands about economics, who is running on bio and the culture war.

  • ||

    Rap stars supporting Obama... yawn. When 92% of blacks in PA voted for Obama in the primary (correcting for the slim percentage of black Republicans, maybe closer to 85% overall), it's no huge surprise that they'd be backing Barack.

    Wake me when one of them come out strongly for Hillary (as 50 Cent did before being a bit more of a "Democrat agnostic"), or, even funnier, McCain. Heck, if Marilyn Manson endorsed Bush in 2000, I'm sure some rapper out there supports McCain...

  • Neil||

    Joe your wrong Reagan ran a good part of his 1980 and 1984 campaign on economics ("are you better off than you were four years ago?").

    Remember how he used the "misery inedx" against Carter and proposed massive tax cuts and de-regulation to jumpstart the economy? And it worked!

    Now liberals want to reverse the gains we've made since 1980.

  • ||

    OK, Neil, here you go:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

    Scroll down, the sixth poll down, the Pew Research Center poll.

    In addition to leading on every other issue, the Democrats have a 12 point lead (49-37) on taxes. The Democrats, who have been running on "repeal Bush's tax cuts for the rich" since 2002.

  • Neil||

    But hey, Joe, if you think higher taxes are solution the IRS some more of your money and convince other people to do the same!

  • Neil||

    The poll didnt ask "Do you support the Democrats plans to raise taxes?"

  • ||

    Remember how he used the "misery inedx" against Carter and proposed massive tax cuts and de-regulation to jumpstart the economy? And it worked!

    Note how his argument was about people's condition, and not about his actual policies. And weren't you just talking about the President waving magic wands?

    As opposed to the Democrats, who have been running on specific economic policies, because they know how much more popular their ideas are.

  • ||

    The poll didnt ask "Do you support the Democrats plans to raise taxes?"

    Yes, and it also didn't mention Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

    Maybe everybody thought the Democrats were running on a platform of repealing the corporate income tax, and that's why they score so highly. But I doubt it.

  • Abdul||

    I defy you to name a single Republican presidential candidate who made Republican economic policy a major part of his general election campaign.

    joe, when do you get to define what issues Republicans ran on? Some of Reagan's slogans ("Are you better off now than you were four years ago?") show that economics was an issue for him. Also, he was attacked in the primary for "Voodoo Economics" by GHW Bush, proving that economics was an issue. Speaking of GHW Bush, wasn't "Read my lips, no new taxes" part of his campaign.

    Cutting taxes, brutalizing criminals, and dissing Jay-Z are the three integral elements of any good republican campaign.

  • ||

    But, hey, if John McCain wants to run on "Are you better off than you were eight years ago?" and "Extend Bush's tax cuts," he's perfectly free to do so.

    I don't think he will. I think his political advisors are a wee bit smarter than you, Neil.

    I think he's going to talk a lot about the flag, and scary black people instead.

  • Elemenope||

    And unlike you I think Iraqis should be able to vote and have Democracy, too!

    I'm fairly sure you are in no position to know whether I believe Iraqis should have democracy or not, since I've never said anything on H&R one way or the other.

    But since you also believe other fanciful things like Obama the faithful Christian churchgoer being a secret evil Muslim fanatic, I am fairly unsurprised that you would also fabricate details about me out of whole cloth, to fit me better into your world-view of what your antagonists must be like as people.

    In case you are curious, I think that democracy is great at encouraging real human freedom when accompanied by a healthy civil society and liberal institutions (independent courts, robust secular/sectarian divide, civilian controlled military), and it would be great if everyone had the privilege of living under such a system if they so chose.

    However, bombing people into democracy seems counterproductive. Neil, of those tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed as a direct result of our invasion and occupation, how many had a "right" to democracy that they will not be able to exercise because they are fucking dead?

  • Neil||

    Joe are you going to pay Clinton-era tax rates to the IRS?

    You can start right now if you want! Go ahead and write a check.

  • ||

    Abdul,

    Econimic condition != economic policy.

    My statement was about economic policy.

    If the same statement ("Are you better off than you were four years ago?") can be made by people arguing polar opposite policy ideas - as it has been - then it is not an argument about policy.

    Also, he was attacked in the primary for "Voodoo Economics" by GHW Bush, proving that economics was an issue. In the primary. In Republican primaries, economic policy is a big issue. No question.

  • ||

    Joe are you going to pay Clinton-era tax rates to the IRS?

    I already am, thanks. I'm not rich.

  • Elemenope||

    joe, when do you get to define what issues Republicans ran on? Some of Reagan's slogans ("Are you better off now than you were four years ago?") show that economics was an issue for him. Also, he was attacked in the primary for "Voodoo Economics" by GHW Bush, proving that economics was an issue. Speaking of GHW Bush, wasn't "Read my lips, no new taxes" part of his campaign.

    WTF does this continue to come up? *Economic policy* (management of market mechanisms for dynamically distributing goods and price information) is distinct from *fiscal policy* (taxation and expenditures by a state or government). Fiscal policy is a tiny, tiny part of overall economic policy. Certainly most economic policy has jack and shit to do with taxation and tax rates.

  • Neil||

    Joe, asking people if they support the Democratic plan to raise taxes, or the Republican plan to make the tax cuts permanent isnt a loaded question and I think most people would say they want the tax cuts.

    Because unlike you LOL most people dont want to pay higher taxes.

  • Untermensch||

    I can't decide if Neil is real or a satire of Redstate commenters made by a regular H&R reader in disguise. Either way I'm amused.

  • Neil||

    Joe Bush cut YOUR taxes with his tax cuts, too, not just "the rich".

  • Episiarch||

    Untermensch, I have already gone on record that I am positive Neil is performance art by, probably, VM. I've accused the moose a few times and he's never bothered refuting me.

    But yes, it's amusing regardless whether I am right or wrong.

  • Untermensch||

    Who is "Joe Bush"?

  • Neil||

    Hey speaking of Red State go check out the front page Joe.

    Theres a poll there (Rasmussen) showing more Americans prefer McCain on economic policy than Hussein LOL!

    Hows that feel?

  • Neil||

    He wins on Iraq too, btw! LOL Joe your deluded.

  • Untermensch||

    Untermensch, I have already gone on record that I am positive Neil is performance art by, probably, VM. I've accused the moose a few times and he's never bothered refuting me.



    That sounds right. I think the "bigget" bit gives is away as performance art, but you never know…

  • Episiarch||

    "Comsymp" gave it away for me. Unless people at RedState actually use that term, in which case I would be floored.

  • Lou C.||

    3rd Base?
    3rd Bass?

    I don't know, and I don't give a darn.

  • Neil||

    Episiarich whats wrong with that term? Yes they do use it at RedState.

    I'll be starting a diary there soon btw!

  • Neil||

    Still waiting for Liberal Joe to respond to the fact that more Americans trust McCain than Hussein Obama on foreign policy and economic policy.

  • ||

    Joe, asking people if they support the Democratic plan to raise taxes, or the Republican plan to make the tax cuts permanent isnt a loaded question and I think most people would say they want the tax cuts.

    Actually, Neil, polls asking specifically about extending Bush's tax cuts vs. repealing them also show outsized support for their repeal.

    Which you would know, if you ever bothered to consult public opinion data, rather than your gut.

    Hows that feel? Like the American public still thinks of John McCain as the guy who opposed Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and who criticized Bush's handling of the war in 2004-2006.

    It's going to be quite an eye-opener when the general election campaign starts, and they find out that "Maverick McCain" wants to stay the course in Iraq and extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Oh, and when they find out that he's 5-8 years older than is generally assumed.

  • Elemenope||

    Neil, what about it? What about all those Iraqis who were bombed/shot before they had a glorious chance to vote? Are they just a necessary sacrifice for the cause of democracy?

    Do you think those folks would have preferred to be still alive but unable to vote?

  • Neil||

    Elemenope sometimes people die for the cause of Democracy.

    Do you think it was better not to have the Civil War and keep slavery, or better not to have World War II but still have Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan on the March?

    How about our Revolution? I hear some people died in that too. I guess it totally wasnt worth it.

    Are you some kind of limp-wristed pacifist?

  • Neil||

    Oh yeah Joe they just arent paying attention right?

    I guess theyre too bitter clinging to their guns and bibles.

    Well wait until they find out the "uniter" Obama is really a hate-filled racist and far, far far left godless tax raiser who is soft on crime.

  • ||

    Oh yeah Joe they just arent paying attention right?

    That's what you told us yesterday. Would you like me to quote the comment?

    Yes, people aren't paying attention to McCain. The Democratic primary fight is getting all the attention.

    Well wait until they find out the "uniter" Obama is really a hate-filled racist and far, far far left godless tax raiser who is soft on crime.

    See, "wait" implies that something is going to happen in the future. I'd say that the public has actually heard, once or twice in the past month or so, those arguments about Obama. No, really. You can find articles and teevee reports and everything!

  • ||

    Godless?

    Whattssamattah, "Secret Muslim" and "Black Liberationist" didn't work out for you?

  • Neil||

    How can they have heard them if you just admitted people arent paying attention to the election?

    Theyre gonna hear more. Wait for the Million Man March story and photo.

    Wait for his Dukakis-like soft on crime record in the Illinois State Senate.

  • Elemenope||

    Elemenope sometimes people die for the cause of Democracy.

    If they choose to, then they "died for democracy". If it wasn't their idea, then they were "murdered for democracy". Takes a little luster off the notion, IMO.

    Do you think it was better not to have the Civil War and keep slavery, or better not to have World War II but still have Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan on the March?

    In both cases, the evil authoritarian/slaveholding government was the aggressor, and in both cases, the response had a great deal to do with self-defense and much less to do with Mecha-Wilsonian bombs for liberty.

    How about our Revolution? I hear some people died in that too. I guess it totally wasnt worth it.

    Seeing as how most of the combat was between declared belligerents (not *too much* collateral damage to civvies), it's not at all a good comparison. Again, if it's your idea to die for a cause, more power to you. If it wasn't your idea, then that's murder, regardless of how many flags or lofty ideas it is dolled up with.

    And I imagine that if it were somehow possible to ask one of those who was killed due to someone else's pursuit of justice or freedom or whatever, that that person may hold a different opinion than you of whether it was "worth it". Is their opinion not relevant?

    Are you some kind of limp-wristed pacifist?

    No, but even if I were such a creature, it is certainly superior to being a bloodthirsty warmonger. Let us ask, together, whether Jesus was a limp-wristed pacifist or a bloodthirsty warmonger? The correct answer doesn't reflect well upon your Christian pretensions.

  • ||

    Neil,

    So, what do you think of atheists exactly?

  • Neil||

    Elemenope we were NOT the agressor in 2003.

    We had been at War with Iraq since 1991. There was just a cease fire in place. There was NO peace treaty.

    And they were shooting at our planes.

    We did NOT commit an act of agression. Any side can abrogate a cease fire whenever they chose without being "agressors".

  • Neil||

    Calidore I dont care what they believe on their own time but Im not sure Id trust one to run the country.

  • Neil||

    I would trust an atheist before a Muslim, however.

  • ||

    Neil,

    The issue is more whether we were just in our aggression than whether we were an aggressor not.

    Calidore I dont care what they believe on their own time but Im not sure Id trust one to run the country.

    Why? Is religious belief some gaurantor of model behavior on the part of politicians?

  • Neil||

    Well look at the last centurys most famous atheist leaders.

    Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxhah, Kim Il Sung.

    Not my idea of moral leaders.

  • ||

    How can they have heard them if you just admitted people arent paying attention to the election?

    Is it a reading diability, Neil? That would explain the spelling thing.

    Here, try again: Yes, people aren't paying attention to McCain. The Democratic primary fight is getting all the attention. C'mon, Neil, you can do it!

    Theyre gonna hear more. Oh, I'm sure they will. The Republicans certainly aren't going to spend this summer talking about Iraq, the economy, and health care.

  • ||

    Elemenope,

    I think that it is fair to say that if Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had been far less expansionist a war would have been far less likely between those countries and the U.S.

  • Neil||

    The economy is a lot of liberal hysteria anyway.

    Unemployment is still very low, if this is a recession its EXTREMELY mild. Quit acting like its 1932. Its not even 1980.

  • ||

    Neil,

    Well, look at the famous religious leaders and how much bloodshed on a per capita level was done via their commands, etc. I mean, consider what happened to the poor Amalekites.
    Clearly the problem isn't whether one is an atheist or a theist.

  • Neil||

    "Poor Amalekites?" Do you know who they were? I guess you dont know Biblical history.

    They were an agressive, imperialistic tribe engaged in slave trading and razing entire villages of other tribes. They weren't exactly innocent victims, unless you think the Mongols under Ghengis Khan count as innocent victims too.

  • Neil||

    IOW, if the ancient Israelites hadn't destroyed them they wouldve destroyed the Israelites.

  • Elemenope||

    Well look at the last centurys most famous atheist leaders.

    Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxhah, Kim Il Sung.

    Not my idea of moral leaders.


    Also among the ranks of perfidious atheists:

    Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, H. L. Mencken, Ayn Rand, Leo Strauss, Mark Twain

    Among the ranks of glorious Christians:

    Adolf Hitler, Augusto Pinochet, Francisco Franco, Robert Mugabe, Slobodan Milosevic

    ---------

    Golly gee, this is a fun game. Next we could make lists of Muslims who invented the foundations of chemistry, astronomy, and mathematics, and then list next to them the Muslims who have committed horrible crimes. What would these lists say about Islam?

    It is trivially easy to show how all religious traditions produce monsters and martyrs in approximately equivalent and predictable proportions.

  • ||

    Is it a reading diability, Neil?

    See? joez law. No escaping.

  • Neil||

    Adolf Hitler was a pagan not a Christian he hated Christianity (thought it was "weak") but actually did admire Islam.

  • Neil||

    Lincoln an Atheist? LOL I guess thats why he mentioned God so much in his speeches and quoted the Bible.

  • ||

    Neil,

    I didn't claim that they were innocent victims. I would note however that the Amalekites don't the best of my knowledge have any voice in this issue; their story is told by their enemies.

    That being said, whether you accept my example or not is unimportant, what is important is that plenty of people have been killed (directly or indirectly) by secular, etc. believers in religion. Again, the problem doesn't appear to be belief in religion or lack thereof.

  • ||

    Stalin was a divinity student.

  • ||

  • Elemenope||

    Adolf Hitler, 1927:

    "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

    Norman H. Baynes, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 19-20

    *Oops, Neil. I guess you are full of shit, yet again.*

  • Neil||

    From Die Bormann Vermerke: Transcripts of Hitler's conversations (5 July 1941 - 30 November 1944), made under the supervision of Martin Bormann, published in the UK as Hitler's Table Talks (1953):

    "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianty's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world the relations between men and gods were founded on instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key note is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence would have developed in the direction of world domination and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilization at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that was in the natural order of things.

    * night 11-12 July 1941)
    "

  • ||

    As for Lincoln, from what I have read on the guy's thoughts re: religion it appears that he would probably not find much support amongst a significant number of Christians in the U.S. I don't think that he was an atheist however.

  • Neil||

    Since Chrstianity invovles worshipping a Jewish man, Im going to go out on a limb and say the first quote was for public consumption before an election while the second quote shows his real feelings on the subject.

  • ||

    Neil & Elemenope,

    Does it really matter whether Hitler was a Christian or not?

  • Neil||

    From the same book:

    "Only in the Roman Empire and in Spain under Arab domination has culture been a potent factor. Under the Arab, the standard attained was wholly admirable; to Spain flocked the greatest scientists, thinkers, astronomers, and mathematicians of the world, and side by side there flourished a spirit of sweet human tolerance and a sense of purist chivalry. Then with the advent of Christianity, came the barbarians. Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers-already you see the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity!-then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.

    * 28 August 1942"

    See? Theres always a natural alliance between the Fascist and Muslim.

  • Charles||

    I wish you would all quit treating Neil like a real person.

  • ||

    Neil,

    FWIW, I would note that some of Hitler's favorite works of art were passion plays which painted Jews with the so-called collective sin of killing Christ.

  • Elemenope||

    Neil & Elemenope,

    Does it really matter whether Hitler was a Christian or not?


    To me? No. But apparently Neil attaches great importance to the question. You see, he believes that Christianity produces good people and atheists are degenerate and not to be trusted.

    This is clearly borne out to be the case by a simple analysis of prison populations.

    LOL.

  • Elemenope||

    I wish you would all quit treating Neil like a real person.

    Why not? It's kinda fun. I wish you would quit pissing all over my fun.

  • Charles||

    Why not? It's kinda fun. I wish you would quit pissing all over my fun.

    I don't mean to piss on you (I don't think), but I get the same feeling reading this that I would get watching someone win a basketball game against a person faking paraplegia for the purpose of mocking those with disabilities.

  • Elemenope||

    Charles,

    Whether or not Neil is a sock puppet/performance art piece/brain damage victim is irrelevant for a few reasons:

    1. There are actually people who believe (in reality) what Neil claims to believe, and so addressing those arguments and positions is not without worth or value.

    2. Since we don't know one way or the other about Neil's true intentions (due to teh magic anonymizing powerz of teh Internets), I find it a good policy to make the assumption that the person is speaking in good faith.

    3. If you never practice, how do you know if you'll be ready for the game?

  • shminky||

    Sounds like Neil got it right re: Hitler and Christianity. He's not completely stupid, you know.

  • Elemenope||

    Actually, shminky, on both Hitler and Lincoln, the question of whether they were "Christians" or not is a heavily nuanced one. They were both very strongly influenced by Christian thought and at least a few times made or wrote comments heavily suggestive of faith, but at the same time they also said and indicated things that were contradictory to their identification as Christians.

    This problem is not solved in either case by relying upon the testimony of close associates who in both cases give conflicting accounts of the religious stance of the subject.

    Since Neil attaches great credence to a person's religion being indicative of their trustworthiness, it's really a problem more for hum than anyone else.

  • Iceman||

    Neil, you can be my wingman anytime.

  • Elemenope||

    *him*, not hum.

    In either case, the balance of the evidence seems to show that Lincoln was at least an agnostic. Hitler is probably better represented as a religious syncretist who sought to blend a smattering of Germanic images and ideas into Catholicism. Heresy? Yes. Christianity? Basically, yes.

  • Regos Carnifex||


    I'm against the war, but beating up a 18-year-old with cerebral palsy is a bit beyond the pale.


    I think that's called "bringing the war home."

  • ||

    3rd Bass were not 3 white guys. The DJ was black.

    FWIW, if you have ever heard of that White Rapper Show or whatever its called on VH1, Serch was the main guy in 3rd Bass.

    I don't know much about "Human Events." Are these guys in a pop culture time warp or do they just get around to things 20 years late? This reminds me of 20 years ago when old white people ( plus C. Delores Tucker or whatever her name was) who knew nothing about anything in the world outside of their country club were so outraged that there was a group of black males named "NWA" who did not love the police.

  • skinny little white nebish||

    if the Weather Underground had overthrown the government in 1973

    oy, just thinking of that is getting my funk on!

  • Hannibal Barca||

    Patreaus is one of the greatest generals ever.

    Really?

  • alan||

    Human Events is not only in a time warp, but a reality warp. Even my 60's hippie mum knows who Method Man and Ice Cube are, and is looking forward to the former appearing in CSI tonight.

    Trying to make a controversy out of the Million Man March? It's commonly known that the purpose of the march was for black males to affirm social responsibility as a guiding force in their lives. It was even modeled after Promise Keepers.

    The only odd thing that came out of it was a speech by Farrakhan on numerology, but you won't score points there on the basis that that speech was too weird for anyone to make hay out of (maybe that was the point ~ pretty clever of that old calypso singer, huh?)

    You Bull Moosers don't want to go that route. That one will backfire on you.

  • Vercingetorix||

    Patreaus is one of the greatest generals ever.

    He doesn't look so tough to me.

  • Belisarius||

    I'd give him a whuppin'.

  • cryingontheinsideclown||

    Elemenope,

    concerning your characterization of the American South as the aggressor in the Civil War:

    South Carolina seceded from the US in 1860, and became a sovereign state... a perfectly legal and Constitutional maneuver.

    On the same day, they requested that the US government remove its troops from Ft. Sumter. That request was refused.

    So, when Beauregard ordered his troops to fire (more than a year later!), they were doing so on enemy troops occupying their territory.

    how is that aggression?

  • Elemenope||

    South Carolina seceded from the US in 1860, and became a sovereign state...

    Wishing doesn't make it so. Declaring oneself to be sovereign is a fair distance from actually being sovereign.

    ...a perfectly legal and Constitutional maneuver.

    Where exactly is that said in the Constitution? I know that several con. law scholars argue over this very point, and I have yet to see a decisive argument either way.

    On the same day, they requested that the US government remove its troops from Ft. Sumter. That request was refused.

    Well, yeah. The federal government owned the fort and had paid for its construction. If some upstart state had said "fuck off, and gimme all the stuff you own that happens to be here, too", I'd have ignored them as well.

    So, when Beauregard ordered his troops to fire...

    He had fired the first shots upon a theretofore non-belligerent force, thereby starting a war.

    Hence, aggressor.

  • cryingontheinsideclown||

    seems to me that your argument is based on the idea that the US (via the Constitution) is like a roach motel: you can get in, but you can't leave.

    as the guys who wrote that document were former Englishmen who'd fought a war to secede from that empire, I have a hard time believing that they intended the country be entry-only.

  • ||

    cryingontheinsideclown,

    A revolution must be based upon just and rational grievances; this is one of the reasons that the Declaration of Independence spent so much of the body of that work discussing and justifying the grievances of the revolutionaries. Were the grievances of what would briefly be the CSA just and rational?

  • cryingontheinsideclown||

    Calidore,

    I think it's nice when a revolution is based upon just and rational grievances, but not necessary. Current events (in addition to a lengthy historical record) are proving how persuasive leaders can lead their people into self-destructive conflict. However, I agree that the English revolutionaries were thorough in justifying their grievances.

    Since my question for Elemenope specifically regarded South Carolina, I would point you to that state's declaration of secession to answer your question:
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm

    I find the arguments rational, though based on an interpretation of the Constitution that the Civil War killed.

  • ||

    cryingontheinsideclown,

    I have read said document before several times. The main grievance found in the text concerns slavery. As slavery is an unjust institution a revolution undertaken to perserve it is an unjust one.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement