the truth really hurts,our sick society today

zombie boy 2000

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I will not lay claim to being a rap expert, but yes IMHO most rappers and those who listen to it, want to give off the impression of being "hard core"... I wish I had a nickel for every 30+ waste of life wannabe coming into where I work with mommy and daddy in tow so they could buy something else on their dime... Rap has done little good and caused a whole lot of grief. My research happens to be my own eyes and my two ears. And yes, they can stay OFF my lawn!

Again... I ask you to do a little research. Throwing out the baby with the bath water and all that jazz. If we judged "rock" by what was being being thrown up by modern day FM radio, we would have to officially plug a stake into the collective heart of that genre. Nickelback... 3 Doors Down... pffft.

I truly believe your stance on Hip-Hop is culturally motivated and thus, very transparent. As seem to be many of your ideas....

average_guy

Hillbilly61 wrote: »

Something like that happened to a friend's son who happens to be in my son's class several years ago. The little boy was 8 or 9 years old and had been playing with a cap gun at home. A cap gun as in the toy gun with paper rolls you load into them and the gun goes BANG when the trigger is pulled.

Anyway, the kid forgets and brings in a roll of caps to school. He pulls them out in class and the teacher freaks. First, she conficates the caps, then he is to the prinicipal's office and the school brings in the police ... for him carrying a weapon to school!!!!!!

My son saw the classroom part and his dad confirmed the balance of what happened with me. The parents had to hassel with the schoolboard to prevent the boy from being expelled as being a danger to the rest of the school. I know this kid. He is a really good kid, not the type that parents recognize as trouble (or trouble in the making).

I want to respond in detail but I don't have time. I'll say this: if we continue to go this way, there may come a time when we as citizens NEED the ability to defend ourselves and we may be unable to do so in any form. That time may come soon. I hope I am wrong.

zombie boy 2000

tonyb wrote: »

Yeah,it would be nice.I think those times represent a period when life was simple.Man goes to work,women stayed home to raise kids,weekends you worked on your car,BBQ,went to church on sunday's,kids went to school and got a whoopin' if they misbehaived.Family's actually talked to each other.
Now,you can't work on your own car,too complicated and for the most part,designed that way.Women must work to help support the family,God is all but outlawed everywhere you look,BBQ's are bad for the environment,and kids can't touch each other,let alone a teacher.Families go to their own rooms and hybernate.So what is so great about now than then?? Gadgets?? Iphones,I-pods,computers,Political correctness,overwhelming debt,no personal responceability? Maybe,battery operated cars,microwaves,remote controls,playstations,Traffic camera's,cell phones,HDTV,public schools,gangs,kids getting shot,banking system falling apart,auto industry in the toilet,now insurance industry going south,Global warming,Global cooling,destruction of the rain forests,immigration,outsourced jobs overseas,manufactoring jobs all but extinct,Unions,bigger government,more taxes,more lawsuits,college costs,entitlements,tin cans,plastic bags,gas prices,airport security,Ceo pay and benefits,law enforcement,etc,etc.

So after looking at this partial list,I came to the conclusion that I would take 1957 in a heartbeat.While some gadgets have improved our lives,others just made us lazy.

It's the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine...









Leonard, Bernstien.

Jstas

This thread hurts my brain.

cfrizz

WTH??? You are talking in circles. If you are a human, then you have your inborn human nature to contend with.

wizzy wrote: »

Wrong.

Human nature itself can not act on it's own. It still takes a human, as in individuals, to act upon that nature to realize its potential.

I would completely agree if the statement read something like "it's human nature which motivated the people, as in individuals, to do what they did"

So while human nature may have been the motivator, it is still the individual who realized the actions.

BlueFox

cfrizz wrote: »

WTH??? You are talking in circles. If you are a human, then you have your inborn human nature to contend with.

Or as White Zombie says, "More human than human".

cfrizz

Well Tony that is very easy for you to say since as a white man you are free to go where ever you want and do whatever you want in any state in the nation.

As a Black woman or man, you had to go sit in the back of the bus, worry about the KKK, drink from separate fountains, go to separate schools....& on & on & on.

All women were discriminated against. Massive fears & trouble over communism. A man could beat the hell out of his wife & no one would interfere because it was between a man and his wife. The same applied to children. (I'm not talking about a spanking for discipline)

2009 Communism is pretty much dead under it's own unworkable weight. I can now do all the above that I couldn't do back then if I had been born. And women in general have a WHOLE lot better now then they did then. In some ways so do children. (But they took it too far)

1957 certainly WASN'T as good as you seem to think that it was.

unc2701

cfrizz wrote: »

1957 certainly WASN'T as good as you seem to think that it was.

That reminds me of something I just saw today:
National Review, 1957

National Review editorial, 8/24/1957, 4:7, pp. 148-9: The most important event of the past three weeks was the remarkable and unexpected vote by the Senate to guarantee to defendants in a criminal contempt action the privilege of a jury trial. That vote does not necessarily affirm a citizen's intrinsic rights: trial by jury in contempt actions, civil or criminal, is not an American birthright, and it cannot, therefore, be maintained that the Senate's vote upheld, pure and simple, the Common Law.

What the Senate did was to leave undisturbed the mechanism that spans the abstractions by which a society is guided and the actual, sublunary requirements of the individual community. In that sense, the vote was a conservative victory. For the effect of it is--and let us speak about it bluntly--to permit a jury to modify or waive the law in such circumstances as, in the judgment of the jury, require so grave an interposition between the law and its violator.

What kind of circumstances do we speak about? Again, let us speak frankly. The South does not want to deprive the Negro of a vote for the sake of depriving him of the vote. Political scientists assert that minorities do not vote as a unit. Women do not vote as a bloc, they contend; nor do Jews, or Catholics, or laborers, or nudists--nor do Negroes; nor will the enfranchised Negroes of the South.

If that is true, the South will not hinder the Negro from voting--why should it, if the Negro vote, like the women's, merely swells the volume, but does not affect the ratio, of the vote? In some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement between Negro and White. The White community will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that it has its way.

What are the issues? Is school integration one? The NAACP and others insist that the Negroes as a unit want integrated schools. Others disagree, contending that most Negroes approve the social sepaation of the races. What if the NAACP is correct, and the matter comes to a vote in a community in which Negroes predominate? The Negroes would, according to democratic processes, win the election; but that is the kind of situation the White community will not permit. The White community will not count the marginal Negro vote. The man who didn't count it will be hauled up before a jury, he will plead not guilty, and the jury, upon deliberation, will find him not guilty. A federal judge, in a similar situation, might find the defendant guilty, a judgment which would affirm the law and conform with the relevant political abstractions, but whose consequences might be violent and anarchistic.

The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is byno means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numberical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.

The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.

That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majorit of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Overwhelming numbers of White people in the South do not vote. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom. Reasonable limitations upon the vote are not exclusively the recommendations of tyrants or oligarchists (was Jefferson either?). The problem in the South is not how to get the vote for the Negro, but how to equip the Negro--and a great many Whites--to cast an enlightened and responsible vote.

The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve teh Negro as a servile class. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a minority whose services, as menials, are economically useful. Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.

Face

I hate when people bring common sense and research to the table.

tom t

boy, this turned out to be an interesting thread. its a good thing i started it. and there are so many thoughts here by all of you. this is good. something as simple as a few possible scenarios and our minds go into overdrive. the good,the bad, and the down right ugly. and we all have a perfect right to feel exactly how we do, whether we agree or not with someones else's view. well, at least for now thats one thing we can still do in this country. for now anyway. god pless america

tom t

i guess thats BLESS AMERICA

messiah

Amen brother, thats America today. Pussified, and disgusting. what a difference even 30 years can make. So sad

nooshinjohn

messiah wrote: »

Amen brother, thats America today. Pussified, and disgusting. what a difference even 30 years can make. So sad

Mega Dittos...

tonyb

cfrizz wrote: »

Well Tony that is very easy for you to say since as a white man you are free to go where ever you want and do whatever you want in any state in the nation.

As a Black woman or man, you had to go sit in the back of the bus, worry about the KKK, drink from separate fountains, go to separate schools....& on & on & on.

All women were discriminated against. Massive fears & trouble over communism. A man could beat the hell out of his wife & no one would interfere because it was between a man and his wife. The same applied to children. (I'm not talking about a spanking for discipline)

2009 Communism is pretty much dead under it's own unworkable weight. I can now do all the above that I couldn't do back then if I had been born. And women in general have a WHOLE lot better now then they did then. In some ways so do children. (But they took it too far)

1957 certainly WASN'T as good as you seem to think that it was.

Cathy,I hope you know I was not refering to,nor mention any of the racial problems,of those times.I meant for myself,those times seemed good,and will not apply for everyone.Point being is that I think most of us yearn for a simpler time,whatever time that was for you.

zombie boy 2000

I just vomited all over my brand new kicks. I'm really starting to wonder what crawls underneath the surface of this forum.
Is it the same thing that lurked under my bed when I was still sportin' underoos?

George Grand

zombie boy 2000 wrote: »

I'm really starting to wonder what crawls underneath the surface of this forum.

It has been an enlightening past couple weeks, watching the **** bubble and boil, and every once in a while, a little squirt of it coming to the surface.

cfrizz

I know you weren't Tony. I was simply pointing out a different perspective for that period of time.

I will certainly take all the medical advances that have occcured since the 50's.

Most likely every generation feels this way about society as things change some for the better & some for the worse.

The bottom line is that parents have to be PARENTS. They are NOT supposed to be their childrens friends.

Most people no longer seem to have a clue about raising children, and those that do have to worry about the govt. 2nd guessing them & interferring.

Men & women just want to have the fun of sex but not shoulder the responsibility of what happens if a child is produced. Those that do end up doing a half assed job at it.

I am just delighted that I don't have any!

tonyb wrote: »

Cathy,I hope you know I was not refering to,nor mention any of the racial problems,of those times.I meant for myself,those times seemed good,and will not apply for everyone.Point being is that I think most of us yearn for a simpler time,whatever time that was for you.