Skip to comments.
Pepsi cans Ludacris after complaints from O'Reilly, public
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^
| 8-29-02
Posted on 08/29/2002 5:28:47 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
To: RedBloodedAmerican
You are the one who based your comments on appearances.That was directed at Constitution Day, correct.
I have seen you do that before where it involves a black person.
Really? Where? Thread and post number, please.
Just going by what I have read in the past on FR. If skin color is not an issue, then why point it out?
I didn't mention skin color at all, did I? That's YOUR assumption. It has nothing to do with me nor what I asked. The same question is applicable if the rapper in question were Eminem.
You mentioned appearances, not tomkat or I.
You're right. You didn't. Neither did tomkat. Constitution Day, did, however.
41
posted on
08/29/2002 6:59:23 AM PDT
by
rdb3
To: RedBloodedAmerican
I tend to agree with rdb3 on this. Commenting on this rap arteest's personal appearance is irrelevant to any meaningful issue. Hiz muzik iz pluntee uglee enuf 2 earn my disrespect. But if I were to offer my irrelevant comments on his personal appearance I would say that he has quite regular and well-formed facial features.
On the other hand, my guess is that Tomkat was venting--as we all do from time to time. I wouldn't read any racism into the comment. I'm sure Bill Clinton is considered physically ugly by many sharp-sighted conservative blacks and handsome by many nearsighted liberal whites. But does that imply racism on the part of black conservatives?
To: RedBloodedAmerican
You are the one who based your comments on appearances. I have seen you do that before where it involves a black person.Again, thread(s) and post number(s) where I did this, please. I'm just dying to know.
43
posted on
08/29/2002 7:10:14 AM PDT
by
rdb3
To: rdb3
A little anal retentive this morning aren't we? Try a diet of Raisin Bran.
If the guy wants to espouse an opinion about Ludacris' looks, intellect, etc, asking him to explain ANYTHING about how he arrived at his conclusions is ludicrous...How he arrives at his opinion is none of our business.
Comment #45 Removed by Moderator
To: IHateLibrals
And just what have I said or done that has given you the idea that I'm not a real American?
46
posted on
08/29/2002 7:15:07 AM PDT
by
rdb3
To: Wondervixen
A little anal retentive this morning aren't we? Try a diet of Raisin Bran.The ad hominem attacks continue.
If the guy wants to espouse an opinion about Ludacris' looks, intellect, etc, asking him to explain ANYTHING about how he arrived at his conclusions is ludicrous...How he arrives at his opinion is none of our business.
True. But he answered the question, which was his prerogative, not yours.
Since you want to play the "business" card, just what business of this was yours since the question wasn't directed at you?
You can't have it both ways.
47
posted on
08/29/2002 7:17:26 AM PDT
by
rdb3
To: IHateLibrals
Answer, just signed up yesterday newbie.
48
posted on
08/29/2002 7:18:07 AM PDT
by
rdb3
To: Oldeconomybuyer
and we've heard from a number of people that were uncomfortable ... Sounds like the rapper wrote this c*** too.
Wonder what "a number of people" means?
12? 212,000?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
To: Oldeconomybuyer
I like the idea of Shakira promoting Pepsi. She's a great singer who writes most of her own stuff (to produce an English CD, she sat down with a Spanish-English dictionary and sounded it out as she went along). Her lyrics are sensual without being trashy. (Lyric: "Baby, I would climb the Andes solely/to count the freckles on your body") I think she's 25 years old, so sensuality isn't Lolita-ish with her.
Britney Spears, on the other hand, is absolutely insidious. She promotes herself as a squeaky-clean role model for young women, then sings lyrics like, "(Moan) I get nasty!" while heaving and moaning into a microphone. Or the oh-so-empowering "I'm a Slave 4 U." Give me a break. She is totally disgusting. I'd have more respect for her if she'd just pose for Penthouse, star in a porno and be done with it. At least it would be honest.
To: rdb3
Check out his posts while there's still time. He's kinda funny, in a lame, transparent, inept sort of way.
I will almost miss him when he's gone.
To: LibertyGirl77
Britney Spears, on the other hand, is absolutely insidious. She promotes herself as a squeaky-clean role model for young women, then sings lyrics like, "(Moan) I get nasty!" while heaving and moaning into a microphone. Or the oh-so-empowering "I'm a Slave 4 U." Give me a break. She is totally disgusting. I'd have more respect for her if she'd just pose for Penthouse, star in a porno and be done with it. At least it would be honest. Britney Spears is the spawn of Satan. I thoroughly agree that her public statements about virgnity and chastity are totally out of alignment with her on-stage persona, though recent articles have suggested she is breaking with her off-stage innocence - if it wasn't a myth to begin with.
But the biggest argument against Britney Spears is much simpler than that. Look at her. She is the embodiment of ignorance and stupidity, yet she has not been damned for this - rather, in her case, it is deemed a virtue.
To top it all off, she has no talent whatsoever. Admittedly, my view is jaundiced by the fact that I listen to classical music, but her entire repertoire appears to be the same puerile, crotch grabbing routine that Madonna exhausted over a decade ago.
Regards, Ivan
52
posted on
08/29/2002 7:28:32 AM PDT
by
MadIvan
To: Wondervixen
We're dealing with young turks on the rise here...Youthful executives who have been taught to go with focus group data over all else. All they did was ask the opinions of a bunch of black youths & inner city white youths Well, It sounds like they polled the Blue zone and made a decision. THEN they heard from the RED zone and changed it real quickly! ;-)
53
posted on
08/29/2002 7:33:25 AM PDT
by
peteram
To: rdb3
Let me ask two questions then:
1. What is it in tomkats comment that made you think he was basing it on the rappers appearance, and
2. What is it about the rappers appearance that made you assume tomkat was referring to his appearance.
As for past threads, find them yourself.
To: MadIvan
Yeah, I agree on both counts. I should have said "croaks into a microphone" instead of "sings into a microphone," in the interest of accuracy and all. The best description of (what passes for) her singing voice that I ever heard was, "Martian in heat."
She IS stupid, but it really is kind of sadly endearing. It makes me almost feel sorry for her, in a way, because I don't think she fully understands just how badly she's being used and abused by the pop culture machine. I suspect she knows something's not quite right, but the money keeps her contentedly oblivious, or at least causes her to turn a blind eye.
She is now an adult, and since she's willingly participating in the wholesale coarsening of American culture, I have very little pity for her. But I do wonder what will become of her when she fills out a little in the hips or her breast implants fall just a touch. She can only play the cute card for so long. The way she's going now, I suspect that Britney will probably die a young and untimely death due to spiritual emptiness and too-fast living. She'll be the next Marilyn Monroe-style or Elvis-style tragedy.
To: Wondervixen
"You'd think they would at least LISTEN TO THE ARTIST THEY'RE PICKING TO PROMOTE THEIR PRODUCT!!!"HA!!
Of course they listened to the bilge; &, you already got know that, too.
Just as they listened to Jeff Gordon, Brittany whatsherface, & the absolutely intolerable Austin Powers, *character* to front their awful product for 'em.
Appears the sugary garbage-water-makers wanted to cover all their marketing bases, to me.
Directly per the himbos & bimbos at the 5th Ave ad agency Pepsi hired to do so, at that.
Pepsi's merely "playin' the room" & got whacked in the process when this consummate deadbeat *rap* artist's "message" was outed; this time.
Because Pepsi's not gonna change their tack; &, will try this kind of crap again, & again, & again.
Remember whose behind the first bank to cater *exclusively* to Lesbians & Homosexuals, now?
Yea, Pepsico.
After all, Pepsico must remain consistent with their targeted market's ad campaign, eh?
..."Pepsi Drinkers *Think* Young."
56
posted on
08/29/2002 7:59:02 AM PDT
by
Landru
To: RedBloodedAmerican
The answers to your questions #1 & #2 are found in post #41. Asked and answered. You made an accusation about me and who I defend and how I argue. Therefore, the onus is on you to prove it by quoting me directly. You made the accusation, therefore you must have some evidence, right?
Either back it up, or shut the hell up.
Or, I can continue to make a complete fool out of you.
The choice is yours.
57
posted on
08/29/2002 8:01:26 AM PDT
by
rdb3
To: hellinahandcart
Dang! He's been vaporized already. What was his angle anyway?
58
posted on
08/29/2002 8:02:54 AM PDT
by
rdb3
To: rdb3
I think he was attempting a parody of what he believes is conservatism.
Liberals have a hard time writing comedy, though.
To: Shryke
Quick, apply your Mason arguement here! Doesn't work too well,does it? ROFLMAO! No,it doesn't apply at all. It doesn't apply BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson