Here Mr. Hood is first establishing that he is an omnipresent being.  However, his being there like "white on rice" is limited to the subset population of "faggots".  Now we are not given in this statement whether or not the term faggots is being used as a pejoritive term for people in general or if his omnipresence is limited solely to the subset of homosexuals.  Irregardless, we are told that either the subset of faggots or the entire population of the world has two options: either being mangled by form of strangulation or mangled by form of slicing.  (It is not entirely clear how one becomes mangled as a result of strangulation, but we must take Mr. Hood at his word in this instance)  This is the least economically rational portion of Mr. Hoods freestyle.  If he is providing two options here, both with the end result of a state of being mangled, it is unclear what choice is more desirable to the economic consumer.  Is there more utility in being mangled by strangulation rather than slicing?  Assuming arguendo, as we will here, that there is not; Mr. Hood is providing options that will neither act as an incentive nor disincentive to the actor involved.  What is Mr. Hood trying to accomplish with his proposition?  We will have to venture further into the song to answer these questions.

A couple of stanzas down, Mr. Hood elaborates.  It appears that his irrational choice proposition, which we previously discussed, is attempting to create incentives for others to show him Respect.  It makes sense, in this context, that Mr. Hood would provide a Machiavellian like choice structure since he would like all others to fear him, as a vessel that will give him the status of being respected.

"Shorty I don't care if you ain't feeling me I ain't feeling you cause see the bitches get thrown in the swimming pool"  

Furthermore, Mr. Hood provides a safety net for those who, after being mangled, still do not show Mr. Hood the respect he desires.  If being mangled does not persuade the consumer to show respect, he details a further disincentive to contrary actions.  The idea here is that the disincentives do not end with being mangled, but may culminate in the consumer being thrown in the pool and possibly drowning due to their prior status as being mangled.  Here we see the opus that makes a formally irrational choice structure, a rational economic choice proposition.  Mr. Hood is stating that being mangled is just a fact of life; no action can deter him from mangling you.  However, if you do not show respect after the mangling, he will throw you in the pool.  Here it is clear that once we reach point 1 (being the consumer's position after being mangled), a position where everyone in the world is equally mangled, a rational consumer must choose to either 1) not show respect and be thrown in the pool, or 2) show respect and remain outside the pool.  Mr. Hood is preaching to the rational actor's desire not to be in the pool to achieve his desired status of being respected by all.  There are obvious problems with his choice proposition; namely that during the summer his disincentives will most likely be less effective than say during the winter months. 

We suggest that Mr. Hood fine-tune his incentive structure to incorporate the many seasons of the year, assuming that his desire for respect is not limited to a smaller portion of time.