MaxFly

Lol, I think he just helped to up Kanye's sales... Good job 50.

Lance Armstong is the most heavily tested cyclist in the sport, yet they've found 1 drug, and even that is questionable...

i'm cool with my mini disc

Haha, that post almost looks like an olive branch... I must agree that many of the youth today do believe that they know it all, oftentimes being insufferable as they dogmatically persist in their beliefs, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That's not me (there's always more to learn), but if you have gleaned that from my post, it seems that I'll have to further clarify my points... I'll do that a little lower down. In keeping with the topic of "know it alls" for a second, I must point out that while young people in general do carry around this attitude, it's not an isolated epidemic. Unfortunately, young people who think they know everything often grow up to be older people who... think they know everything. Our elders often simply think they know everything because they are older. In truth, knowledge is passed down from parent to child, older to younger, generation to generation. This is how prosperous societies have always worked. However, the older among us are often so focused on imparting knowledge that they forget that there is always something new to learn, even from the very youth they are imparting knowledge to. Now that's not to group you with that lot Cozmo. I don't know you, so it would be overly presumptuous of me to characterize you as such. Indeed, you don't seem to be, and I look forward to our "learning from each other." However, I did feel the need to point out that the "know it all" epidemic is not isolated, if only to stand up for the youth a little. Now about that post... You said that you addressed everything I replied to in the very same post. I'm not sure you understood what I posted, so I'll pull out some examples... You said that Kanye was simply voicing his concern of black people being grouped together when troops were told to shoot to kill. I pointed out that it was more of an accusation, and you have to question whether he understood what the full situation was in NO, or whether he chose to ignore it and make his accusation anyway. From the statement he made, he didn't convey concern that innocents and criminals may be grouped together; rather, it seemed that he had already made up his mind as to why troops were going in with shoot to kill orders, or at the very least, made it sound that way. The whole issue of that statement seems to be one of perception, or more accurately, how he chose to perceive the situation. In the face of the shootings, the arson, the raping, and the looting, he chose to make it sound like troops would be entering the city to shoot black people indiscriminately rather than to simply restore order, scaring away those who would use the tragedy for their own personal gain. I listened to the govenor of Louisiana give the "shoot to kill" order. For all her tough talk of M16s, troops weren't going to go in to shoot people taking bread and water, and in hindsight, they haven't done that. They haven't grouped the innocent with the criminals. If he wanted to convey his concern, he should have worded his statement as such or not said anything on the issue at all. Instead, at the very least, he made it sound as if he were accusing the govenor of giving the orders because of discrimination. You made another statement to the effect... The entire situation in New Orleans was overtly (openly or obviously) racist. I answered you with a question. If the entire situation is openly racist, where does the mayor of New Orleans stand in the whole equation. He has a fair share of blame in all of this, but he's black. You said "...overtly, yet perceptively." When you used "overtly" did you mean "openly or obviously?" Is it that you just used the wrong word to express what you wanted to say? Did you want to say that it was not obvious, yet perceptible? I really am seeking to understand what you meant by that. Something that is overt is generally perceptible; I didn't understand the use of yet in that sentence.

What's worse is that Lance Armstrong seemed to use EPO during his fight with cancer. If you're going to indict a man for cheating without sufficient evidence while he was trying to save his life, shame on the French media.

And yet you keep responding, 2 pages after you said you were done with me... Is your memory going already? This is exactly why they shouldn't let old people use the internet; they start talking like they're in a barbershop and they don't know when to stop.

Not sure what the stipulations of the contract with Interscope are, but maybe Will needs to start handling his stuff through Overbrook from now on. He sure has enough money to do it...

Embarrassed? Please! By a kid playing on the internet? None of this means anything to me. I stopped caring when I realized I was trying to engage in a serious conversation about race with a 21 year old! Now, put your daddy on the computer and run along and do your chores! There's a fine young man! :lolsign: :rofl: Uh oh. You know you're approcahing middle age when my youth becomes a talking point for you.... Running around calling people young "whipper-snappers." Stop while you're behind....

And so he won 7 times because of a drug he had in his B sample 7 years ago? What does that have to do with him falling off his bike?

This could get interesting.

Still excited huh... why don't we try to keep your blood pressure down... You used the word "nucular" in comparison to the word I used, "irrespective." The problem with this is that "nucular" is not a word in writing, nor is it a word in pronunciation. You won't find it in the dictionary under "nucular" nor will you find it as an alternative phonetic pronunciation of the word "nuclear." However you will find "irrespective" in most dictionaries. And of course, as I've already explained, I know how to use the word, and employed it just fine in the context it is used. But... but I do admit that I failed to put it in bold as I regularly would. You guys know how fond I've grown of doing that... a little extra emphasis in case it wasn't properly conveyed by the "ir." Did you have other people do your homework for you when you were in college too? You know, you could have looked this up yourself... It would have saved you a little embarrassment... :therain:

Instigator... :lolsign: :lolsign:

Wouldn't be fair to me? Who's making assumptions now. Irregardless is a word just as much as nucular is. Bring it on kid! I was correcting my college professors 7 years before you were born! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Maybe you should go back to school... Nucular Irregardless Nice try though.

I missed it as well, but I'll try to record it and put it up tomorrow. I'm happy to hear that the crowd was feeling it.

I can get with that... I really can... but part of you will always wonder how much of this is because of sympathy for her and how much of it is because the album is good. I guess I'll reserve judgement until I downlo... I mean, buy it....

That didn't say anything about wearing dreads means you can't date white people. ← Well... I think "hatred for the white race" may set some limits on relationships between the two races... Tim, if it is possible, could you post whatever media Common's statements are in or on. Rappers are starting to say more and more stupid things, and it's like... Et tu Common...

irregardless adv : disregardless; regardless; In spite of everything; without regard to drawbacks; a combination of irrespective and regardless sometimes used humorously It's not standard English, but it is indeed a word... one that's actually quite widely used to stress points, as I was doing, irrespective of the obvious double negative. It's not a word I would use in a thesis or on a job application, but then again, this is a Jazzy Jeff-Fresh Prince messageboard... Now I understand that the matters that we have been discussing can be quite volatile, but don't get too excited and lets not make personal attacks. At the end of the day, this is still the internet. You will have your strong beliefs, I will have mine, but never assume that you know anything about me and never presume to lecture me. You have no idea where I've been, what I've seen, what I've experienced or who I've experienced it with. No idea where I've traveled or what experiences have brought me to the place that I am now. Please don't pretend to. It simply leads to a back and forth that adds nothing to the original debate. As for experience being the best teacher, that's actually true, however I offer a caveat. Even as some students fail to learn from the best teachers, some people fail to learn even from the most profound experiences. It's not so much having the experiences as it is learning from them. Intellectual judo is fun, but you don't really want to go in that direction with me. It wouldn't be fair for others who would much rather discuss the topic of this thread, and it wouldn't be fair to you.

I don't know if you've read through the past 20something pages, but it seems that you haven't, so I'll say what I've said several time before, again. I'm with everyone, not just rappers, who are criticizing the president for his slow response in getting aid to those in the south. However, I refuse to heap all of the blame on him and allow FEMA, the department of homeland security, the govenor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans to escape acountability. If the people at FEMA aren't doing their jobs, they need to be fired, because saving lives after a disaster is their job. If the govenor or the mayor didn't take the necessary steps to save lives before and after the disaster, they need to be held accountable. If you want to want to focus on the President and let these people off the hook, the proper lessons from this disaster will not be learned. Why did the President respond so slowly? Why did FEMA respond so slowly? Why did the govenor not allow the federal government to take control when they asked? Why did the mayor call for an evacuation of the city so late and why didn't he use all of the resources that he had to evacuate the citizens of his city. All of these questions need to be answered, but they won't be if we can't look at the President, and then beyond him.

Those are the exact words that went through my mind.

The real shame is that black people will always look at the world through race tinted glasses, not because they are forced to but because that's what they choose to rely on. Things are always made into an issue of race, irregardless of the facts, irregardless of the situation. The problem is not that we stand up for equality in all facets of society. It is not that we create controversy when controversy is what is needed. It is not that we show outrage and speak the truth when the situation calls for it. Those are noble and courageous things. Those are the things that many of our predecessors fought and sacrificed their lives for. The problem arises when we, in our quest to be "enlightened," cheapen their sacrifices with ignorant accusations and unproven theories, when we let our bias get in the way of our better judgement. The problem is when we think the worst without proof or just rationale and when we create controversy at a time when it is the last thing the situation calls for. If we, as a people are to conquer racism, we need to remain vigilant, yet at the same time, we need to remain credible. If we cry "racism" where there is none, if we scream "discrimination" where there is none, looking foolish on national television isn't the biggest thing we'll have to worry about.

My dreams are largely tame, but I doesn't seem like a good idea.

I'd suggest that the Wizard travel to hollywood if he is concerned about making money.

No spin. Kanye voiced an accusation. Not a concern. If Martial Law was to be fully implemented in NO, shoot to kill orders would have been the same. The shoot to kill orders were passed down by the governor of Louisiana, not the federal government. The decision is certainly not arbitrary. There is hard evidence that the step was needed, regardless of the race of the people. If buildings set on fire by arsonists and shootings taking place in the streets aren't evidence of the need for such a measure, what is? Troops aren't roaming around shooting people taking food. They are trying to keep the peace in a place where lawlessness is hindering search and rescue efforts. There have been no reports of troops shooting victims, innocent people, or people taking food. I have heard of troops shooting and killing men who shot at navy core of engineer workers and stopping arsonists. In hindsight, they have done an excellent and fair job in reestablishing some level of peace in NO. Why is it that people are afraid to look at the whole picture. So then I ask you, how was the mayor of NO's slow response prior to and after the disaster OVERTLY RACIST. HE IS BLACK! If the entire situation in New Orleans is overtly racist, his action, or lack thereof have to be grouped with the rest of the failures as overtly racist. However, the problem with this is that he is black. Now if he were of a different race, it is almost a certaintly that someone somewhere would attribute his failure to act immediately as having to do with race. Unfortunately, what you don't seem to understand is that there is no evidence of racism in the events and failures in New Orleans. Your argument seems to intimate that racism is "so imbedded in the crux of the American System" that even if there is no evidence for such an accusation in the case of New Orleans, racism is what we will blame the failures of the local and federal governments of anyway; because black people are involved, racism has to play a role.

I have to agree. I don't know if Common is racist, but I think that his ideology is totally off.

Haha, what do they say Tim?