BF2S Forums Gangsta Rap is Harmful?

Tis

Introduce the kids to proper music, problem fixed.

Turquoise wrote:

I like how that guy mentioned that Jay-Z is a better rapper.  Another better rap group is Outkast.  Generally speaking, the groups and rappers that talk about more than just "cash, dope, and bitches" are worthwhile.

Tupac was good too.  Most rappers these days are pretty manufactured and empty in their message.

Must admit...too many "Gangsta Rapper" these days...one or 2 song about sex and cash on a record is not that bad...when the whole album is about the same subject **Point at 50 cent**...it just get old and boring really fast.

Good raper like Tupac, Eminem and those who actually deliver a message or say something that make a little sense are becoming a rare sight.

Turquoise wrote:

Parenting always helps...   but aside from that, we need to gradually end the war on drugs while investing more in public technical education so that these kids can learn trades that land them good jobs.

QFT, as Newt Gingrich said today in the Senate, we need to offer these kids a means of income that will keep these kids off the street, such as not charging them taxes on their income during the ages of 14-16 (as long as they are enrolled in public education and are passing), personally I believe we should continue that through maybe 18, and continue it the tax free income if they are enrolled in college, giving these kids an incentive to stay through their education.

Turquoise wrote:

GorillaKing798 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Parenting always helps...   but aside from that, we need to gradually end the war on drugs while investing more in public technical education so that these kids can learn trades that land them good jobs.

QFT, as Newt Gingrich said today in the Senate, we need to offer these kids a means of income that will keep these kids off the street, such as not charging them taxes on their income during the ages of 14-16 (as long as they are enrolled in public education and are passing), personally I believe we should continue that through maybe 18, and continue it the tax free income if they are enrolled in college, giving these kids an incentive to stay through their education.

It sounds like I actually agree with Newt on something.  I just wish he and his buddies were more supportive of public education or at least willing to devote more time to crafting a system by which such education is promoted.   Currently, the Republicans seem far too preoccupied with war and the social agendas of the Religious Right.

Well with Obama's plans for education I am much more in favor of a republican who will at least make some stride in public education than to continue citing race as the only reason public education is failing. Frankly, the lack of support for students in total, regardless of race, is what keeps driving the dropout rate higher and higher. A drop out rate of 1/3 is a train wreck. Especially in areas like Detroit, where the graduation rate of students is 21.7% and education in these areas is some of the most expensive in the nation. Newt admitted that race is a problem but he has ideas to reform public education and also help the issue of family support.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0621/p03s02-ussc.html

Last edited by GorillaKing798 (2008-03-27 16:50:53)

GorillaKing798 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

GorillaKing798 wrote:

QFT, as Newt Gingrich said today in the Senate, we need to offer these kids a means of income that will keep these kids off the street, such as not charging them taxes on their income during the ages of 14-16 (as long as they are enrolled in public education and are passing), personally I believe we should continue that through maybe 18, and continue it the tax free income if they are enrolled in college, giving these kids an incentive to stay through their education.

It sounds like I actually agree with Newt on something.  I just wish he and his buddies were more supportive of public education or at least willing to devote more time to crafting a system by which such education is promoted.   Currently, the Republicans seem far too preoccupied with war and the social agendas of the Religious Right.

Well with Obama's plans for education I am much more in favor of a republican who will at least make some stride in public education than to continue citing race as the only reason public education is failing. Frankly, the lack of support for students in total regardless of race is what keeps driving the dropout rate higher and higher. A drop out rate of 1/3 is a train wreck. Especially in areas like Detroit, where the graduation rate of students is 21.7% and education in these areas is some of the most expensive in the nation. Newt admitted that race is a problem but he has ideas to reform public education and also help the issue of family support.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0621/p03s02-ussc.html

I only agree with Obama about half of the time, but that's still more than I agree with Hillary or McCain.

I'm against affirmative action, so I know what you mean here.  Still, I personally think the problem with our education system is that we do it on the cheap.  Detroit might have a comparatively expensive school system to say, my own here in Greensboro, NC, but it's still cheap compared to many European systems.  If we spent the kind of money that the U.K. and Norway spend per student on education, we'd have a world class system, but we'd also have higher taxes.

The problem is that Americans want it all.  Few of us seem to understand that lower taxes means not only more disposable income, but it also means crappier social and public education systems.   You get what you pay for.  We either need to socialize more or just take the privatized route.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-03-27 16:56:10)

Turquoise wrote:

GorillaKing798 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It sounds like I actually agree with Newt on something.  I just wish he and his buddies were more supportive of public education or at least willing to devote more time to crafting a system by which such education is promoted.   Currently, the Republicans seem far too preoccupied with war and the social agendas of the Religious Right.

Well with Obama's plans for education I am much more in favor of a republican who will at least make some stride in public education than to continue citing race as the only reason public education is failing. Frankly, the lack of support for students in total regardless of race is what keeps driving the dropout rate higher and higher. A drop out rate of 1/3 is a train wreck. Especially in areas like Detroit, where the graduation rate of students is 21.7% and education in these areas is some of the most expensive in the nation. Newt admitted that race is a problem but he has ideas to reform public education and also help the issue of family support.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0621/p03s02-ussc.html

I only agree with Obama about half of the time, but that's still more than I agree with Hillary or McCain.

I'm against affirmative action, so I know what you mean here.  Still, I personally think the problem with our education system is that we do it on the cheap.  Detroit might have a comparatively expensive school system to say, my own here in Greensboro, NC, but it's still cheap compared to many European systems.  If we spent the kind of money that the U.K. and Norway spend per student on education, we'd have a world class system, but we'd also have higher taxes.

The problem is that Americans want it all.  Few of us don't seem to understand that lower taxes means not only more disposable income, but it also means crappier social and public education systems.   You get what you pay for.  We either need to socialize more or just take the privatized route.

Here in Florida our Public Education is terrible as well, however raising taxes does not necessarily mean a better education system. Spending our money more wisely and not wasting our money is the way to go, and not creating more worthless organizations. Again as Newt said modeling ourselves like other countries with efficient systems more beneficial. The kids have to buy into the dream, the kids who see their friends pushing drugs and pimping girls who are making more money than the hard working tax payer. Reforming more efficiently and minimizing expenses is the only solution. the kids need an incentive to go to school and get an honest job.

Turquoise wrote:

GorillaKing798 wrote:

Here in Florida our Public Education is terrible as well, however raising taxes does not necessarily mean a better education system. Spending our money more wisely and not wasting our money is the way to go, and not creating more worthless organizations. Again as Newt said modeling ourselves like other countries with efficient systems more beneficial. The kids have to buy into the dream, the kids who see their friends pushing drugs and pimping girls who are making more money than the hard working tax payer. Reforming more efficiently and minimizing expenses is the only solution. the kids need an incentive to go to school and get an honest job.

For the most part, I agree.  One way to make the system more efficient is to focus less on academics and more on trades.  Most people are better at trades than intellectualism.  Generally speaking, liberal arts are really a luxury of the wealthy.  Most of us have to go into careers that are more directly useful to society, like engineering.

My suggestion is that we scale down public academia and replace it with more technical education so that more kids can learn a high skill trade that is far less likely to be outsourced than say, a typical factory job.

We probably won't ever do this, but it seems like the only solution for public education.

I couldn't agree more. My father's college room mate used to run a class a a trade school, all of these kids graduated with extremely high marks, and went on to be extremely successful mechanics and engineers. However he was forced to retire after 30 years of teaching because the funding for these programs was cut off. Current administrations don't understand that not all of us need to learn about how a plant germinates, undoubtedly we must have a strong basic education, but when students enter high school it should be much more trade oriented.

Turquoise wrote:

Germany seems to be a lot more pragmatic in its approach.  They divide students at the equivalent of a high school level into trades and academia.  These are entirely different school tracks for students to go through, so that each student can play to his/her strengths and the technical minded kids can get decent paying jobs straight out of school.

If we used their system, we'd be in a much better situation.  We would have higher taxes though, so I think people would need to understand that paying a little more in taxes for something like this is well worth the money.

True, however I still think more efficient spending could do just as much as a tax raise.

Is it harmful?  Ya

Should we do anything about it?  No

GorillaKing798 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

GorillaKing798 wrote:

True, however I still think more efficient spending could do just as much as a tax raise.

If, by more efficient, you mean ending corporate welfare, then I would agree.

No, giving money to the poor just teaches them to continue to be dependent, but giving corporations tax breaks and such for employing these people if they will commit to finishing an education would be far better, and again encourage these people to learn a trade.

There is some truth to what you're saying, but it's far from the whole truth.

Social programs are necessary.  Corporate welfare isn't.  Social programs are a safety net against increased crime, whereas corporate welfare is a tool by which corporations crush local smaller businesses.

The decline of small businesses in America is a serious issue in our economy, because as the entreprenuerial spirit wanes, so do the choices that consumers have when making their purchases.  The current state of our economy borders on a corporate version of Communism, where the state funds corporations at the expense of small business owners.  Oligarchies dominate the majority of our industries, and any true advocate of fair competition should find this disturbing at the very least.

Turquoise wrote:

GorillaKing798 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If, by more efficient, you mean ending corporate welfare, then I would agree.

No, giving money to the poor just teaches them to continue to be dependent, but giving corporations tax breaks and such for employing these people if they will commit to finishing an education would be far better, and again encourage these people to learn a trade.

There is some truth to what you're saying, but it's far from the whole truth.

Social programs are necessary.  Corporate welfare isn't.  Social programs are a safety net against increased crime, whereas corporate welfare is a tool by which corporations crush local smaller businesses.

The decline of small businesses in America is a serious issue in our economy, because as the entreprenuerial spirit wanes, so do the choices that consumers have when making their purchases.  The current state of our economy borders on a corporate version of Communism, where the state funds corporations at the expense of small business owners.  Oligarchies dominate the majority of our industries, and any true advocate of fair competition should find this disturbing at the very least.

Some social programs are needed, however the sheer number of ways you can get money from the government is pure ludicrous, If I'm obese , I can claim disability so that i don't have to work and may continue to fund my mission to boost the stock of KFC. Funding an exemptions apply to big business as well as small business, give these small businesses an easier way of getting these tax breaks and ending up employing more workers and keeping kids off the street will work wonders  in crime rates, and boost small business as well.