Forum Post: Cops And Robbers
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 4, 2012, 10:19 p.m. EST by nazihunter
(215)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Anything on TV? It seems like every single show is about cops and crime, terrorism and super secret agents. And how well do ANY of them resemble real life? Not a f'n one. Sure, now and then, there's the corrupt official story line...and everyone else is soo good, they flush 'em out and give them a conscious. Refer back to the statement about REAL LIFE. The shows, their advertisers; it's the kind of dope that can really make you sick. I think the real reason pot isn't legal is because we all our greedy pharmaceutical companies would go out of business. NEW THIS FALL! nothing. just more cops and robber shows.
how about a singing show ?
CSI Glee?
Yes! Load it up with commercials about a symphony of cell phones. I'm still having nightmares from that one. Goodbye Sprint.
I heard att is on strike I should switch
I have phone service over the internet with magic jack. About 40.00 a year now for service.
No, stay with att.
A must see for everyone in this post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8lDYrvTILc
The ladies love them; it's not cops and robbers, it's the Lone Ranger and Tonto... black and white , mask and masked, voodoo lighteneering.... enhanced emotionality, exaggerated functionality, delicious deception at every turn in time... dramatricks appeal to chicks.
Unfortunately, I have to agree. No men with spine nowadays.
Chicks rule.
Well, if we truly want equality, that's not how it should be.
Human ability is limited to the scope of the mind's constructs; civility grants equality in that it prevents us from killing each other, and women as the physically weaker sex, have empowered themselves entirely through focus on the dynamics of human interaction; all is the study of relationships, the idiosyncrasies of the relationship... evolution ensures an equality, for a purpose. Power shifts according to circumstance; all things force-lawed seek to contain power to the favor or enhancement of another, this is the will suppressed, as evolution's desire en macro, which also serves purpose... I don't believe the male female dynamic has changed one iota in thousands of years; the design of law is counter balanced by this dynamic; the very idea that women have ever failed to impart their will is entirely bogus, it's fiction... proliferation of the species is the evidence. In consigning power to the responsibility of law, women devalue sex, and their ability to influentially exert or extract a social civility is lessened. So I think there are different forms of "equality"; issues arising in the 60s and 70s, or even now, are primarily the result of economic logic - women have become victims of our necessary industrial machine, everything else in the form of social movements, issues, ideas - corporated, incorporated, or instituted - as "ideology," is pure fiction - evolution lies to us - nothing upsets the balance, we proliferate. Men are not big fans of that proliferation; they have always sought to promote their own pool through the decrease of another, so if power has shifted, it is only because women seek to defend their own worlds against possible loss. I don't think a perfect gender equality is possible, much like like a perfect happiness, it's a goal unattainable.
You're taking something simple and making it way too problematic. Simply take the word and state what the ideal is. But, I agree that true equality isn't possible. So what is? Men are also victims of the industrial machine...which I disagree is necessary or logical. Your view of men is too general and completely unsubstantiated. Maybe in the halls of power..at the top and only at the top. I, seriously, don't know one man who promotes the increase of his gender over the female. Me thinks your analysis is tainted with emotion.
No, I wasn't speaking of gender... We promote our own genes, both male and female, over all others. The civility we extend to others is self serving; it's anything but altruistic. I view equality as an extension of civility; the equality women seek today in legal form, whether they fully realize it or not, is the result of population density and evolutionary economic logic - evolution has created a lie, a fiction in their minds, and its allowed them to be sucked into the economic machine. They will not find any true fulfillment there because it is not the world of the nurturer; it's a cold, continuously conniving, scheming, war-like machine where only the stoic, the strong-willed, and extremely determined can successfully survive. And it offers no emotionally fulfilling reward. But in any case, I think women really do like the drama in today's cops and robbers programming and I think there's a reason for that related to the inner psyche.
ok, well that seems to make more sense. I think there was a heavy dose of exploitation that kind of helped that lie a bit. where there's no equality in terms of civility, we can always expect to be at odds with one another.
I'm not entirely sure about that... by the time Gloria Steinem published her first article in 1969, women were essentially equal. Her "we're the same, therefore equal," which was eventually challenged and discarded in favor of a "we are different but should be treated equally," was primarily focused on employment - gender free access to traditionally defined roles including military service, equal pay, and eventually legislation defining and limiting sexual harassment. This served the modern economic machine which had outgrown, outpaced, the male labor force. And it's somewhat of a ruse, too, because what women were really demanding, whether they realized it or not, was not equal employment but an intellectual equality, especially on college campuses, and a greater voice as "nurturer" in the media. Ms magazine, and many others, was successful because it empowered the voice of women. But... there is an evolutionary tradeoff because evolution requires balance. And even today, men and women are NOT equal, nor do we seek a true equality - if we did the Equal Rights Amendment would have been ratified long ago. Perhaps the answer lies in an equality through greater female voice.
Nope, didn't outpace the male workforce. Jobs were tight throughout the late 70s and early 80s. It was exploitation, pure and simple. Two parents working meant you didn't have to pay one parent a hell of a lot more. Exploitation set out to get both working and it succeeded.. Wages fell flat during that period while houses went from an average 8k in the 60s to 90k by 1980. Gas, which was a quarter a gallon, jumped past a dollar. Then we hit double digit inflation. Wages fell way behind. the proof is there. The Civil Rights movement was exploited the same way. Trust me, the corps. know how to make any little thing work to their advantage.
I don't see it as an intentional exploitation. Women themselves promoted an economic equality while industry and all other employers resisted. There is some truth to exploitation, though, in that media corporations profited from the promotion of the women's movement; those that gained an independent voice ultimately became very successful corporations unto themselves.
I will agree that the dual income fueled the rise in housing, the rise in fuel prices, but I actually see a drop in most consumer goods as imports replaced domestic product. Wages only fell behind relevant to the incredible rise in housing.
I think you're an idealist. But, my take on the equality thing is respect. Respect differences for what they are, strengths and weaknesses. I'm fine with women attaining higher positions than myself or anybody else, for that matter. The same goes for minorities. But once it turns into a situation of "entitlement" based on gender or race-I draw the line. And no programs should be in place to grant such entitlements. They only serve to widen the divide and, that's what the current ones do The evidence is there to suggest that still no one feels like an equal, so they haven't helped.
Yea, I understand that, but you'll agree that respect and equality are two different words. Mutual respect may grant a sense of equality but that's not what the women's movement is about, the women's movement is a legal device, which serves them economically. Also, if one requires preferential treatment, to gain a more perfect equality, something is askew - it is not equality they seek but superiority and in that case an offer of equal opportunity will not suffice. You're right, I see current emphasis as creating a divide where none needs exist.
Ah, see, that;s where respect comes in. Does the women's movement just serve them economically, or everyone? Two different words or not, they're married.
Respect is one of those words everybody uses but no one can define; it's a deference, easily extended in the presence of those more powerful, far more difficult for males if that being is a lesser; it's a courtesy - another word not easily defined - and in this case the 'it' of this statement is power - power is voluntarily deferred to the lesser in such a manner as to imply an unquestionable value to the presence of this other being, it may be in the form of esteem, or it may not, but in all cases it is with penultimate eye towards some negotiated benefit to self.
Men struggle with respect every day of their lives; you say, we must begin with respect, and you say this because it not something naturally inherent in our relationships; we extend, grant, freely give, as a "courtesy" because we want to keep or preserve this relationship; we are takers, not givers... but if men do not grant this respect, defer this power, the other individual will either be immediately smited or will eventually just wither and die... we preserve to ensure self preservation.
Reproductive rights, workplace equality, equal opportunity - all are economic concerns... absent formal debate we have collectively decided to not only keep our women but to keep them in the workplace; absent any formal debate, men have collectively decided, and women were sucked into the industrial economic machine - evolution speaks for us...
That is why I have always struggled with visions of slavery... it's because I know that a perfect dominance is counter-productive; it cannot long exist under any economic circumstance without an unlimited, easily dispensed, free supply. And that just does not exist without far reaching power which Americans historically, in general, have never had. I must question visions of a perfect dominance.
[Removed]
police and thieves in the streets scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition.. Scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition Police and thieves in the street Fighting the nation with their guns and ammunition
From Genesis to Revelation The next generation will be hear me
And all the crowd come in day by day No one stop it in anyway All the peacemaker turn war officer Hear what I say
IPeople mock you when you say 'there will come a day.' Just worry 'bout yourself. Live day-to-day. Predictions come and go. anyway.. You still worry. they notice not their moral decay. and so far it's only you that pay.
I don't know about you but I like watching TCM Channel - Quite a variety and the movies are mixed and have a theme instead of "violent effects" as so many people today are tuned into.
Old movies are the best. There's an actual story line. Man, how 'bout that? But, then it always makes me ask, 'what the ? happened!?
You just realizing this?
In the respect that I never really noticed just how much of all programming, (other than reality nonsense), is totally unrealistic police CRAP, I confess.