You're just in denial, man. Remember, Rolling Stone was also a part of the media that supported the white man's portrait of Elvis, would you dismiss what they published if they were sucking Elvis's cock as they usually do? There's a reason that that interview was unpublished, it was because it didn't back up all of the lies that had been posted about Elvis. But if you insist, I will offer. Elvis was such an insurmountable wall of racism that I can pull quotes for days.

"I remember James Brown asked me what I thought of his music. I told him that if he were white he'd be my favourite artist."
Elvis in an interview with Sounds Magazine (UK) 1971

Just come to terms with it dude, doesn't make you any less of a person to admit that your boy was a racist.

Either you are accusing Tupac as being a racist (because the antecedent of "he" is Tupac) or your English is deplorable. I usually wouldn't say anything thing, but I really don't care for your thread derailing.

I wonder if he would still be alive today if he never died.

:rofl:

lol

I'm not sure where you're getting that from, Mr N? There's nothing wrong with his English: if he were to state every person by name it would be "Elvis doesn't really like Tupac because Elvis is kinda racist." The only thing using "he's" does is make it very slightly ambiguous as to whether Frown is talking about Elvis or Tupac, but I think we can work out he's talking about Elvis, in the context of what he has already written. I don't see how that makes his English "deplorable". :confused:

Now if he has said "Elves are racist", then yes, you'd wonder what he had been smoking. I've no interest in Elvis personally, but I would worry that Frown seems to like just stirring the pot for the sake of it. Here we have a guy paying tribute to one of his heroes and Frown drops in a totally out-of-left-field comment which turns the thread into a discussion about whether or not Presley was racist. It probably matters, but is this the place to do it? And if he's gonna do it then should he not provide, as was requested, actual evidence, rather than a pithy line about an "unpublished article"? I mean, I know if I started saying one of his heroes was racist, or a bigamist, or a satan-worshipper, or occasionally listened to prog rock, he'd want proper, irrefutable backup, so why is he not providing this when asked?

Mind you, I'm not denying the possibility that Elvis was racist; I neither know nor particularly care. But a claim like that demands backup.