Cindy Sheehan

[Lynn7]

'It's Up to You Now': Sheehan Quits


Email this Story

May 29, 1:22 PM (ET)

By ANGELA K. BROWN

(AP) Peace activist Cindy Sheehan speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2007 where...
Full Image

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized an anti-war movement with her monthlong protest outside President Bush's ranch, said Tuesday she's done being the public face of the movement.

"I've been wondering why I'm killing myself and wondering why the Democrats caved in to George Bush," Sheehan told The Associated Press while driving from her property in Crawford to the airport, where she planned to return to her native California.

"I'm going home for awhile to try and be normal," she said.

In what she described as a "resignation letter," Sheehan wrote in her online diary on the Daily Kos blog: "Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it.

"It's up to you now."

Sheehan began a grass roots peace movement in August 2005 when she camped outside Bush's Crawford ranch for 26 days, demanding to talk with the president about her son's death. Army Spc. Casey Sheehan was 24 when he was killed in an ambush in Baghdad in 2004.

Cindy Sheehan's protest started small but swelled to thousands and quickly drew national attention. Over the next two years, she drew huge crowds as she spoke at protest events. But she also drew criticism for some actions, such as meeting with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's leftist president.

"I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement," Sheehan wrote in the diary.

Kristinn Taylor, spokesman for FreeRepublic.com, which has held pro-troop rallies and counter-protests of anti-war demonstrations, said dwindling crowds at Sheehan's Crawford protests since her initial vigil may have led to her decision. But he also said he hopes she will now be able to heal.

"Her politics have hurt a lot of people, including the troops and their families, but most of us who support the war on terror understand she is hurt very deeply," Taylor said Tuesday. "Those she got involved with in the anti-war movement realize it was to their benefit to keep her in that stage of anger."

When Sheehan first took on Bush, she was a darling of the liberal left. "However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used," she wrote in the diary.

She said she sacrificed a 29-year marriage and endured threats to put all her energy into stopping the war. What she found, she wrote, was a movement "that often puts personal egos above peace and human life."

She said the most devastating conclusion she had reached "was that Casey did indeed die for nothing ... killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think."

Sheehan told the AP that she had considered leaving the peace movement since last summer while recovering from surgery.

She decided on Memorial Day to step down and spend more time with her three other children. She said she was returning to California on Tuesday because it was Casey's birthday. He would have been 28.

"We've accomplished as much here as we're going to," Sheehan said, saying she was leaving to change course. "When we come back, it definitely won't be with the peace movement with marches, with rallies and with protests. It will be more humanitarian efforts."

Last year, with $52,500 in insurance money she received after her son's death, Sheehan bought 5 acres near downtown Crawford as a permanent site for protests.

"Camp Casey has served its purpose," she wrote in the diary. "It's for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford, Texas?"

_________________________________________________

You mean the left is hypocritical and places politics before values? Oh well.

[jeo4]

Anything to smear liberals, huh, Lynn?

[Thrizzle]

While the democrats are spineless, the issue is far more complicated than just hypocrisy.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I don't understand how this is hypocrisy. The woman is just exhausted, and that's a fact. Ever since her kid died she's been trying to turn support against the Administration's war policy. The popularity of the war is very low and will never be any better, and in under two years the strategy in Iraq will change, no matter who's in office. She's speaking to the converted now, and it seems pointless that she would go on.

[Silverload]

Why do people hate this woman so much? I don’t get it :(

[Badbird]

Originally posted by Silverload
Why do people hate this woman so much? I don’t get it :(

No kidding. She's just saying what most people are thinking... she's just been saying it longer than most.

And as far as I'm concerned, she can say whatever she wants, because unlike most of us, the war cost her more on a personal level than any of us can imagine.

[Scarfather]

I still don't understand why this woman ever made news.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Scarfather
I still don't understand why this woman ever made news.

She was interesting for a while. It was sort of like when Ron Kovic came out in the protesting scene. It was something people weren't used to....seeing war mothers protesting.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Silverload
Why do people hate this woman so much? I don’t get it :(

Well her husband obviously didn't support her in her endeavors, it's not hard to see how she can get on peoples' nerves.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You mean the left is hypocritical and places politics before values? Oh well.

Lynn, this is intended to be funny right? It has to be? Or do you truly believe that the right places values before politics?

[MadsenOMC]

Let me elaborate.

John McCain once called people like Jerry Falwell “agents of intolerance,” which of course they are (or were). Now he is courting their vote and is shamelessly pandering to the religious right. Is that putting values before politics?

Mitt Romney has changed his opinion about nearly every major social issue in the last year. He has suddenly become pro-life and anti-gay marriage, though while governor of Massachusetts he was pro-choice (and bragged about it while running against Ted Kennedy) and pro-civil unions. He is now pandering to religious conservatives. He is also pandering to the NRA crowd. Romney bragged about being a hunter even though he has hunted only twice in his life and only recently even joined the NRA. Is that putting values before politics?

Guliani is no better. He has altered his stance on civil unions and abortion in an effort to ease the concerns religious conservatives have about him. Is that putting values before politics?

These are merely three easy examples off the top of my head. I could go on and on, talking about Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove and the entire Justice Department putting politics before values. Or Tom Delay and the other Republicans who have been arrested and imprisoned recently and how they put politics before values. There are endless examples Lynn, so maybe you want to refine your statement?

[Lynn7]

Sure- I was not calling Sheehan a hypocrite. I am calling the fact that no major media has covered her story since she came out against what the Dems did. The media loves her while she is bashing Bush but when she wants to criticize the Dems they don't want anything to do with her either. Also her crowds have dwindled when it comes down to bashing the Dems.

It's not that I think the Repubs don't place values above poilitcs it's that the Dems think that they are all about being righteous and they aren't. They think they are the party of the pure and noble- they aren't.

These are her words:

When Sheehan first took on Bush, she was a darling of the liberal left. "However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used," she wrote in the diary.


Also, to address your points- McCain will not get the religious vote unless he happens to win the primary without them and is up against Hillary.

Romney has been all over the place on social issues but he was my governor and he did a good job. He is not as forceful as I would like. I want someone more like Guiliani who does not make so nice.

I dont' think Rudy has changed his positions- he is trying to explain them so they will seem less threatening but he has not become prolife in his policies as far as I know. He is a law candidate. He will be for rule of law and defense. He won't be caring much about social issues is what I'm thinking.

[MadsenOMC]

Lynn, which party spends more time trying to legislate morality? That would be the Republican party. They care so much about what people do in their bedroom and what people do with their bodies. If any party believes that they are the party of the pure and noble, it is the Republican party.

Guiliani is not trying to clarify anything. He is trying to not alienate conservative voters on social issues. The man is a disgusting piece of shit who would sell his mother if it paid enough. I can't wait to watch him explain his three marriages, including one to a cousin, to the "family values" crowd.

[Lynn7]

I am glad someone is trying to legislate morality. We sure need some morality in this country before we descend into chaos.

Stay out of the bedroom? No one is in anyone's bedroom. The problem is when people start wanting to kill babies that were made in that bedroom. No one is saying people can't have premarital sex or can't have gay sex. What happens though when these things come out of the area of privacy and begin to affect issues that will have impact on others.

The Dems are the ones who accuse the Repubs of trying to starve school children and the elderly. The Dems are the ones who would have you beleive Repubs don't care about the soldiers. They are the ones who are always trying to claim the high moral ground. Yet they are the same ones who would terminate pregancies and euthanize the sick (and many elderly are sick). They are the same ones who would cut off funding for the troops in order to score political points. That is the morality of the Democratic party.

And if we are the ones who are always in people's bedrooms, why is it the Dems who are always bringing up Rudy's marriages that do not impact public policy. I don't approve of his personal life but I am always curious why his worst critics (the Dems) shouldn't be defending him on these private issues if they felt that the conservatives are wrong to criticize personal behavior.

[MadsenOMC]

Lynn, who gets to decide what morality is? Me? You? What is we have different interpretations? Why should the federal government be telling me what is moral? What if I don't agree with their definition?

You also need to read more and broaden your understanding of certain issues. The Republican party is very much trying to enter people's private lives and tell them who they should and shouldn't sleep with. Plenty of them are saying people shouldn't have premarital sex or gay sex.

Do you get all of your news from the FoX News Channel? Where do you come up with this shit?! The Democrats are all trying to kill babies and old people?! The entire party?! I guess you are a huge fan of broad generalizations that have little basis in reality Lynn. You need to educate yourself more.

I don't think there are many morals in the Republican party. They are the party of "Do as I say but not as I do." There are exceptions of course.

What's funny is that Rudy's worst critics are not even Democrats, they are conservatives, like the man who just started Catholics Against Rudy. Open your eyes a little.

[bigred760]

I don't like her mostly because of her timing. She was nowhere to be found when the war started, or when her son was sent there. Only when her son died did she speak out against the war and President Bush. To me, it made her son's sacrifice seem more petty than it should have been. The guy's a hero and she made his sacrifice and heroism lesser.

I'm glad she'll be out of the "spotlight" now.

[Thrizzle]

She was courageous to stand up to the right wing smear machine. Lets face it, it wasnt easy to do what she did and at the core of the issue what she did was right. This war has been a disaster, mismanaged by greedy incompetents and who knows where this country would stand on the war without people like Sheehan.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The Dems are the ones who accuse the Repubs of trying to starve school children and the elderly.


:confused: I've heard Democrats make silly accusations but I don't think I've heard anything quite like that from either side.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Lynn, who gets to decide what morality is? Me? You? What is we have different interpretations? Why should the federal government be telling me what is moral? What if I don't agree with their definition?

You also need to read more and broaden your understanding of certain issues. The Republican party is very much trying to enter people's private lives and tell them who they should and shouldn't sleep with. Plenty of them are saying people shouldn't have premarital sex or gay sex.

Do you get all of your news from the FoX News Channel? Where do you come up with this shit?! The Democrats are all trying to kill babies and old people?! The entire party?! I guess you are a huge fan of broad generalizations that have little basis in reality Lynn. You need to educate yourself more.

I don't think there are many morals in the Republican party. They are the party of "Do as I say but not as I do." There are exceptions of course.

What's funny is that Rudy's worst critics are not even Democrats, they are conservatives, like the man who just started Catholics Against Rudy. Open your eyes a little.

Yes, I'll have to start reading some more.

The Republican party is not trying to legislate against premarital sex or gay sex. That is the difference. The Democrats want to legislate all of their issues like it is OK for an underage girl to get an abortion without parental consent, taking away the parents right to be informed about something that affects their own child! It is OK for a husband to decide to cut off his wife's feedings even though he has a conflict of interest that he has a girlfriend and a few kids by that girlfriend- even while the woman's parents beg for her to stay alive and they will take care of her. Euthanizing her by refusing anyone to even try to give her a sip of water by mouth. Kept away by guards. That is the Democratic party at work. The life of the individual is irrelevant. The community should always come first. The community will decide if someone should live or die. Loved ones need not interfere.

I think it is wonderful that the Repubs hold their own people accountable to their values. They are against infidelity and hold Rudy accountable by giving him criticism over it, unlike Bill Clinton who was having sex with an intern in his place of work (Dems were really against this until Bill, but when one of their own did it, it was suddenly a decision between 2 consenting adults).

They turned against a value they had preached to the public thousands of times about the unfairness of sex in the workplace and how this could lead to harrassment and unfair promotions but all of a sudden the women's movement became strangely silent on sexual harrassment and we have not heard from them since the Bill/Monica incident (except on abortion, of course!)

[MadsenOMC]

Lynn, you need to start making sense. When did Democrats support a husband who wanted to force his wife to stop feeding their child, or whatever the hell it is you said? Can you please provide a link or more details? I'm not sure what you are talking about. I feel like you just make stuff up sometimes.

Spending and wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on abstinence only education is what I call trying to legislate against pre-marital sex. Or how about opposing Supreme Court decisions that ruled against sodomy being illegal?

What Republicans are holding Rudy accountable for his actions? Who in the Republican party has come out against Rudy for being married three times, and being married to a cousin?

Also, you didn't answer these, and I feel they are very valid. Who gets to decide what morality is? Me? You? What if we have different interpretations? Why should the federal government be telling me what is moral? What if I don't agree with their definition?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Lynn, you need to start making sense. When did Democrats support a husband who wanted to force his wife to stop feeding their child, or whatever the hell it is you said? Can you please provide a link or more details? I'm not sure what you are talking about. I feel like you just make stuff up sometimes.

Spending and wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on abstinence only education is what I call trying to legislate against pre-marital sex. Or how about opposing Supreme Court decisions that ruled against sodomy being illegal?

What Republicans are holding Rudy accountable for his actions? Who in the Republican party has come out against Rudy for being married three times, and being married to a cousin?

Also, you didn't answer these, and I feel they are very valid. Who gets to decide what morality is? Me? You? What if we have different interpretations? Why should the federal government be telling me what is moral? What if I don't agree with their definition?

I was talking about the Terri Shiavo case. I'm not making it up- the husband had a conflict of interest and yet the courts ruled with him over her parents who were willing to take over her care.


You are the one who said Rudy's worst critics are conservatives so that is what I was referring to about holding him accountable for his actions in his life. Not excusing it all by saying he didn't love his wife anymore so it was ok to dump her for someone new.

Who gets to decide morality? We used to agree on certain things as a country but now I think there is hardly any morality. Even murder which could be seen as something we all agree on is up in the air. Just look at OJ Simpson walking the streets. And who knows, maybe Phil Spector will get off too! Rape or molestation can also be excused if the person is popular (sports stars and music stars especially).

You are right. Because we cannot decide on morality there is no more morality. Most people used to base morality on bible teachings but that is out the window these days so now we have this wonderful society we are living in.



How does abstinence education hurt kids? If you don't have sex when you are a teenager you wont get herpes, or syphillis, or AIDS and you won't get pregnant. It's just common sense. I guess that is a terrible thing to tell kids. It's better if we expect them all go to go out and do it with mulitple partners and just make sure that they try to remember to wear condoms. That is the result of the education the liberals have inflicted on our school kids. Free sex! If you get pregnant just abort it. If you get a veneral disease take some meds! If you feel like crap about yourself because you are feeling like a piece of ass, take antidepressants. Great education! Great time to be alive!

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I was talking about the Terri Shiavo case. I'm not making it up- the husband had a conflict of interest and yet the courts ruled with him over her parents who were willing to take over her care.

Well to get biblical on you, even the Bible states that once married a wife is her husband's and vice versa.




Originally posted by Lynn7
Who gets to decide morality? We used to agree on certain things as a country but now I think there is hardly any morality. Even murder which could be seen as something we all agree on is up in the air. Just look at OJ Simpson walking the streets. And who knows, maybe Phil Spector will get off too! Rape or molestation can also be excused if the person is popular (sports stars and music stars especially).

You are right. Because we cannot decide on morality there is no more morality. Most people used to base morality on bible teachings but that is out the window these days so now we have this wonderful society we are living in.

I'm kinda finding it hard to see how OJ Simpson and all that have anything to do with morality. I mean our system is about innocent until proven guilty (except in the court of public opinion), so one cannot assign morality till blame is officially placed, and blame wasn't placed on OJ. Don't get me wrong I and even the black community that wanted him to get off know he did it. The statistics of abusive husbands/boyfriends who end up killing their mate is pretty high.

You could blame this on our adversarial court system or people's stupidity and the ability to be distracted by bright lights and teh allure of the rich and famous.

We did used to agree on certain things in this country because a majority of it was run by very like individuals, namely old white men. The landscape has drastically changed, and it keeps on changing because we're acknowleding that not everything is black and white.

And don't believe that everything way back when was so highly moral. The only real difference between then and now is that those in the know, knew it wasn't proper ettiquette to bring certain immoral activities to light. Now, everything is up for grabs.

Everyone knew JFK was a lech, but the press never reported it (long before the days of the "liberal press") because it wasn't a "proper" thing to do.

Originally posted by Lynn7
How does abstinence education hurt kids? If you don't have sex when you are a teenager you wont get herpes, or syphillis, or AIDS and you won't get pregnant. It's just common sense. I guess that is a terrible thing to tell kids. It's better if we expect them all go to go out and do it with mulitple partners and just make sure that they try to remember to wear condoms. That is the result of the education the liberals have inflicted on our school kids. Free sex! If you get pregnant just abort it. If you get a veneral disease take some meds! If you feel like crap about yourself because you are feeling like a piece of ass, take antidepressants. Great education! Great time to be alive!


Yeah, but at the same time you're basically crossing your fingers hoping that all kids will stick with abstinence, but if you know anything about basic statistics, you know there'll be a percentage who follow and a percentage that don't. For every kid who does remain abstinent how many don't and how many of those kids are running around, a sexual retard, not knowing the proper way to protect themselves?

I've met these idiot kids and your jaw would would be permanently set ajar if I mentioned just a few of the things these kids believe is true.
These are not the kids I want running around not knowing anything about proper protection.

And on top of that, the kids think they can find loopholes in "abstinence" like only performing oral or anal sex because its "not really intercourse". Crafty little fuckers aren't they?

Also, you mention not having sex when you're a teenager, so then wait till they're in their twenties and it'll be better? They'll be just as uninformed and we all know college is where most people, if they haven't in highchool, become sexually active there. Do you advocate it more in college because they're not in highschool? Of course I know you don't advocate sex before marriage, but let's face it, not everyone finds their soulmate in their late teens/early twenties.

My point is eventually sex is going to come into these kids lives, whether when they are teens or a little bit older. Just telling them to keep it in their pants and masturbate till marriage is wishful thinking, at best, at worst its a disservice to them and a possible danger to the community. The "liberals" are just giving them information to try and lower their risks of pregnancy and disease if they decide they're ready to get into that, the part where they're supposed to have some sense self-worth, guidance and thoughtfulness, that job is for the parents. The lack of the latter unfortunately leaves the the education woefully incomplete. So let's not try and do away with or suppress what's left.

Also I had sex education in highschool and not once did my teacher make light the issue of getting an abortion. So your glib little example of how the topic is broached in school is simply, well, too simple. Its the kids, through no effort on the teacher's part who I've heard act glib about it. Its not merely just TV or movies. Kids aren't thoughtless sponges. The path to decisions is laid with a foundation based on experiences and environment, TV and movies come waaaaaaaay further down that road.

[Badbird]

Originally posted by Lynn7

How does abstinence education hurt kids? If you don't have sex when you are a teenager you wont get herpes, or syphillis, or AIDS and you won't get pregnant. It's just common sense. I guess that is a terrible thing to tell kids. It's better if we expect them all go to go out and do it with mulitple partners and just make sure that they try to remember to wear condoms. That is the result of the education the liberals have inflicted on our school kids. Free sex! If you get pregnant just abort it. If you get a veneral disease take some meds! If you feel like crap about yourself because you are feeling like a piece of ass, take antidepressants. Great education! Great time to be alive!

So all that happens when you have sex? How are any of us even alive by now?

The simple fact is that if you tell a teenager he can't do something - he is going to do it. We've been down this road before. Abstinence only education has been proven to be ineffective.

Meanwhile I was taught about safe sex, birth control, as well as abstinence, and so far I have had three partners and have not contracted any diseases and/or gotten anyone pregnent. I simply must be doing something wrong. I should have a dozen kids and AIDS by now.

And something I've always wanted to know about abstinence only programs is this: let's say these two kids do just that, and then they get married... then what? They've had no education on safe sex or birth control. Are they just supposed to get pregnent and pump out kids every time?

Yeah. That's a good idea.

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Who gets to decide morality? We used to agree on certain things as a country but now I think there is hardly any morality. Even murder which could be seen as something we all agree on is up in the air. Just look at OJ Simpson walking the streets. And who knows, maybe Phil Spector will get off too! Rape or molestation can also be excused if the person is popular (sports stars and music stars especially).

You are right. Because we cannot decide on morality there is no more morality. Most people used to base morality on bible teachings but that is out the window these days so now we have this wonderful society we are living in.



How does abstinence education hurt kids? If you don't have sex when you are a teenager you wont get herpes, or syphillis, or AIDS and you won't get pregnant. It's just common sense. I guess that is a terrible thing to tell kids. It's better if we expect them all go to go out and do it with mulitple partners and just make sure that they try to remember to wear condoms. That is the result of the education the liberals have inflicted on our school kids. Free sex! If you get pregnant just abort it. If you get a veneral disease take some meds! If you feel like crap about yourself because you are feeling like a piece of ass, take antidepressants. Great education! Great time to be alive!

But the idea that telling all kids to abstain from sex, will in time, actually keep kids from having sex is the problem. You're basically hoping and wishing that kids will heed your words and listen whole heartedly. Some do, but others don't. And are we to sit here and let the kids who decide to have sex, stumble around having unprotected, idiotic sex because WE didn't think it was right to educate them? I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to not keep teenagers in the dark who do make that decision. (And may I remind you, no school is inherently saying it is okay to go out and have sex with many partners by teaching safe sex methods, they simply understand not everyone adheres to the same thought process and moral plain, and while some want to abstain, other may not chose to do so and should be educated given the risks involved these days).

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
Well to get biblical on you, even the Bible states that once married a wife is her husband's and vice versa.



You could blame this on our adversarial court system or people's stupidity and the ability to be distracted by bright lights and teh allure of the rich and famous.




Yeah, but at the same time you're basically crossing your fingers hoping that all kids will stick with abstinence, but if you know anything about basic statistics, you know there'll be a percentage who follow and a percentage that don't. For every kid who does remain abstinent how many don't and how many of those kids are running around, a sexual retard, not knowing the proper way to protect themselves?

I've met these idiot kids and your jaw would would be permanently set ajar if I mentioned just a few of the things these kids believe is true.
These are not the kids I want running around not knowing anything about proper protection.

And on top of that, the kids think they can find loopholes in "abstinence" like only performing oral or anal sex because its "not really intercourse". Crafty little fuckers aren't they?

Also, you mention not having sex when you're a teenager, so then wait till they're in their twenties and it'll be better? They'll be just as uninformed and we all know college is where most people, if they haven't in highchool, become sexually active there. Do you advocate it more in college because they're not in highschool? Of course I know you don't advocate sex before marriage, but let's face it, not everyone finds their soulmate in their late teens/early twenties.

My point is eventually sex is going to come into these kids lives, whether when they are teens or a little bit older. Just telling them to keep it in their pants and masturbate till marriage is wishful thinking, at best, at worst its a disservice to them and a possible danger to the community. The "liberals" are just giving them information to try and lower their risks of pregnancy and disease if they decide they're ready to get into that, the part where they're supposed to have some sense self-worth, guidance and thoughtfulness, that job is for the parents. The lack of the latter unfortunately leaves the the education woefully incomplete. So let's not try and do away with or suppress what's left.

Also I had sex education in highschool and not once did my teacher make light the issue of getting an abortion. So your glib little example of how the topic is broached in school is simply, well, too simple. Its the kids, through no effort on the teacher's part who I've heard act glib about it. Its not merely just TV or movies. Kids aren't thoughtless sponges. The path to decisions is laid with a foundation based on experiences and environment, TV and movies come waaaaaaaay further down that road.


Shaivo's husband was with another woman for years and even had kids with her. To me that is not a husband. Would you be Ok with your legal husband making your decisions for you if he was living away from you with another woman who had kids with him (and you had no kids with him) or would you feel better about it if your parents made the decision in that case? Its basic business practices that precludes people with conflicts of interests to do certain things.

Anyway, I don't think that people used to be more moral but society was more moral and people could be held to a certain standard. That standard does not hold up in this new society. Now people say what is moral? Whatever.

It's not that I dont want kids to learn about sex and to keep them in the dark about protection. The problem I have is that the way the schools are presenting it is we know you guys are going to be doing this so make sure to protect yourselves! Well, our bodies are designed to want to get pregnant when we have sex. It's not an accident- the bodies are geared that way. Sex is not recreational. Viruses and bacteria are passed easily through sex and some hot night in high school can result in a deadly disease or if not that bad can result in herpes that can affect a person the rest of his/her life. It is not recreational and should never be presented that way (even subliminally).

It's like if I was teaching 6th graders about drinking alcohol and said, I know you guys are going to be stealing booze from your parents liquor cabinets cause you are going to be drinking cause that's what kids do so when you do it make sure that you don't drink without planning responsibly. The kids are getting a message that drinking is something everyone is doing (even if they weren't even thinking about it at that point). Are the kids going to be responsible when they drink? Hell no. Are they going to be responsible when they have sex? Hell no.

So let's not send them the message that everyone is doing it. Let's send the message that it is dangerous to have sex. There are many risks involved. IF someone is currently doing it even though it is dangerous then they should wear condoms or have someone wear condoms.


But I remember watching a documentary on adult AIDS workers and this AIDS counselor who taught people about condoms all day long did not use them herself. When asked why, she said she didn't understand why she didn't. It was nothing logical- it was psychological. I think it was probably peer pressure. When you meet someone you are attracted to you want to please them and you may decide in the heat of the moment to forgo the condom. I think most people probably do from time to time at the very least.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7

Anyway, I don't think that people used to be more moral but society was more moral and people could be held to a certain standard. That standard does not hold up in this new society. Now people say what is moral? Whatever.


At what point in American history was society like this? I love when people point to some pretend time in the past when things were supposedly better, because they always seem to have no real idea of what the time was like. The 1950's weren't what you see on Leave it To Beaver. "I just wish this country could return to a time of morality and family values...like when we were segregated and lynched children in public for whistling"

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
At what point in American history was society like this? I love when people point to some pretend time in the past when things were supposedly better, because they always seem to have no real idea of what the time was like. The 1950's weren't what you see on Leave it To Beaver. "I just wish this country could return to a time of morality and family values...like when we were segregated and lynched children in public for whistling"


You bring up a great point. Plus, we forget that Kennedy, one of our most beloved presidents, corrupted the innocence of more women than any Girls Gone Wild video.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7

Anyway, I don't think that people used to be more moral but society was more moral and people could be held to a certain standard. That standard does not hold up in this new society. Now people say what is moral? Whatever.

That doesn't make sense. Society is made of people. If the people aren't moral the society cannot be

Originally posted by Lynn7
It's not that I dont want kids to learn about sex and to keep them in the dark about protection. The problem I have is that the way the schools are presenting it is we know you guys are going to be doing this so make sure to protect yourselves! Well, our bodies are designed to want to get pregnant when we have sex. It's not an accident- the bodies are geared that way. Sex is not recreational. Viruses and bacteria are passed easily through sex and some hot night in high school can result in a deadly disease or if not that bad can result in herpes that can affect a person the rest of his/her life. It is not recreational and should never be presented that way (even subliminally).

It's like if I was teaching 6th graders about drinking alcohol and said, I know you guys are going to be stealing booze from your parents liquor cabinets cause you are going to be drinking cause that's what kids do so when you do it make sure that you don't drink without planning responsibly. The kids are getting a message that drinking is something everyone is doing (even if they weren't even thinking about it at that point). Are the kids going to be responsible when they drink? Hell no. Are they going to be responsible when they have sex? Hell no.

So let's not send them the message that everyone is doing it. Let's send the message that it is dangerous to have sex. There are many risks involved. IF someone is currently doing it even though it is dangerous then they should wear condoms or have someone wear condoms.

You seem to be under this mistaken impression that kids are taking their cues from their adult teachers, people they only see maybe an hour a week. Kids talk with each other, they get their ideas about whats going on around them from other kids. Which is why they're idiots.

OK, sure, we'll have the teachers play ignorant and not address the matter directly, the kids will still be the ones sending that message.

And btw, when was the last time you attended a actual public school sex ed class? My class was taught in a very dry and clinical manner(a real turn on), until we had our group exercises where kids would anonymously submit questions or their opinions about sex. This is usually where the teacher would get an idea of how many kids were sexually active.

Teachers aren't pulling these statements out of their asses. They're addressing teenagers honestly with the information they're being presented, because if there is anything teens hate and can sniff out like bloodhounds, is adult BS.

Its amazing people still want to continue playing that "Do as I say and don't question why" game with teens, when we all know that because they're teens they are going to question it automatically, and playing hide and seek with the info isn't going to aid in the argument.

Oh, and on my end I don't have an issue with abstinence. When I was growing up it was taught part of the arsenal against STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but I don't like people using it and playing the ball-under-the-cup game with the rest of the info hoping that denial of the other alternatives and ignorance will change the habits of teenagers.


Originally posted by Lynn7
But I remember watching a documentary on adult AIDS workers and this AIDS counselor who taught people about condoms all day long did not use them herself. When asked why, she said she didn't understand why she didn't. It was nothing logical- it was psychological. I think it was probably peer pressure. When you meet someone you are attracted to you want to please them and you may decide in the heat of the moment to forgo the condom. I think most people probably do from time to time at the very least.


Yes, people do stupid things and life is ironic. We've already discussed many times that we don't judge the validity of ideas and science based on the folly of others.

Hell I grew up watching the Real World LA, where Tammy, who worked at a Free Clinic, got pregnant, despite the fact that she was surrounded by pamphlets on Safe Sex and condoms. People can be dumb, but we don't let society de-evolve into an idiot-cracy because of it.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
At what point in American history was society like this? I love when people point to some pretend time in the past when things were supposedly better, because they always seem to have no real idea of what the time was like. The 1950's weren't what you see on Leave it To Beaver. "I just wish this country could return to a time of morality and family values...like when we were segregated and lynched children in public for whistling"

Life was not perfect for all but society had much better standards than what we have now. Look at all the cheating that goes on in colleges. Look at all the divorces- 50%! Look at all the molestations and rapes and kidnappings and on and on! Crime has risen tremendously in my life time. My parents and grandparents remembered very good times in community even though there were hard times. People helping people. Now it's every man for himself in many cases. I don't get how you guys have been fed this crap that the 50s were so bad. My parents remember the 50s as being much like the Clevers-they were not in the money either! They lived very meager lives. Their parents rented apartments during their upbringing. Moms stayed home and often didn't drive. The whole family would eat dinner together at night. People went to worship together each week!

Yes, there was racism and things could be hard for many Black families and yet the familes stuck together and worked through hardships. Now families are no more. Especially in the African American community, the marriages have been disappearing and life in a way is much harder for the kids than it even was during racism. At least people stayed together and were committed to each other. That is worth a lot. That is morality, IMO. Committment and loyalty.

Now people of all races desert their families to chase someone new who is sexually appealing and think nothing of blowing off wife and kids or husband and kids. That is something that didn't happen much in the 50s. That would've been considered shameful, not free love.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Life was not perfect for all but society had much better standards than what we have now. Look at all the cheating that goes on in colleges. Look at all the divorces- 50%! Look at all the molestations and rapes and kidnappings and on and on! Crime has risen tremendously in my life time. My parents and grandparents remembered very good times in community even though there were hard times. People helping people. Now it's every man for himself in many cases. I don't get how you guys have been fed this crap that the 50s were so bad. If those t v shows were not based on life in that time period, then no one said so. My parents remember the 50s as being much like the Clevers. Moms stayed home and often didn't drive. The whole family would eat dinner together at night. The way professors talk it is like the 50s were a cesspool or something. I'm not saying there weren't bad things that happened then so don't go into racism and stuff on me. I know about that. But we improved over time on that too. Now we have intergration to the point of where an African American might be our next president. That all started happening way back many years ago. Not in just recent years as you guys seem to be taught.



Well lets see, we probably have more criminals now because we have more laws then back in the 50s.

We have "more" rapes and child molestations now compared to way back because stuff like that actually gets reported now, whereas before it was kept secret and buried because it wasn't very pretty or fit with the veneer the 50's cultivated.

Check out how many future serial killers were raised in the 50's. Read Tobias Wolfe's "This Boy's Life". It wasn't all pretty!

I'm very happy your parents and grandparents enjoyed that time. I can tell you my family didn't have the cute Leave it to Beaver or Donna Reed life the 50's advertised. There still were unwed mothers, domestic abuse, homosexuals, rape, incest etc. the only difference was much of this was kept under wraps because, as you describe it, it was a "moral time" those things I mentioned do not fit with that classification.

There is no perfect era. All life is a trade off.

Here's the ultimate question though: If the 50's were so great, why didn't it last?

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Life was not perfect for all but society had much better standards than what we have now. Look at all the cheating that goes on in colleges. Look at all the divorces- 50%! Look at all the molestations and rapes and kidnappings and on and on! Crime has risen tremendously in my life time. My parents and grandparents remembered very good times in community even though there were hard times. People helping people. Now it's every man for himself in many cases. I don't get how you guys have been fed this crap that the 50s were so bad. If those t v shows were not based on life in that time period, then no one said so. My parents remember the 50s as being much like the Clevers. Moms stayed home and often didn't drive. The whole family would eat dinner together at night. The way professors talk it is like the 50s were a cesspool or something. I'm not saying there weren't bad things that happened then so don't go into racism and stuff on me. I know about that. But we improved over time on that too. Now we have intergration to the point of where an African American might be our next president. That all started happening way back many years ago. Not in just recent years as you guys seem to be taught.

Yes, people are not perfect and do things wrong but there are times when society has its act somewhat together. This time period, now, is not one of them.


You're minimizing and glossing over the horrendous suffering of all minorities, a suffering and fear NO ONE in America has to face today even if they are divorced and eat T.V. dinners in their bedroom, to try and pretend like a time when it was nothing out of the ordinary, nothing against the morality and accepted views of society to LYNCH a CHILD for whistling. That's not necessarily being racist, but it's being heartless and tremendously selfish.

You wish America could return to a time when white middle and upper class families like your own lived in a homogenous, anglicized, Christian world of picket fences. But America was not a better country then than it is now, and the people were much, much worse. They were horribly racist, bigoted, violent people. They wanted the blood of every man, woman, and child in Japan who they thought weren't even people. They wanted to remain segregated from and were violently opposed to black people, who they barely thought of as people. The U.S. government supported views like this, they were common place. They were accepted, culturally, morally, socially as the norm and as okay and as good Christian things to think. Divorce rates were low because it wasn't socially acceptable to get divorced, so people had to stay together. In the 30's when no one was getting divorced, nearly all women were beaten and brutalized by their husbands and it was acceptable for men to have affairs, now people have the horrible option of choosing to leave a relationship if it isn't right for their life. Rape, murder, and crime have been much worse in the past and they're not worse now. Technology has helped tremendously to curb crime and violence, we're better off now than we've been at most other times in our history. Rape and murder are common throughout all of American history, we're a traditionally violent people. You think there wasn't constant rape and murder in frontier times, the Old West, during the Civil War and the Great Depression? People weren't helping eachother then either. And in the 50's, people only helped people like themselves, so it wasn't the magnanimous, brotherly love spirit of giving you're trying to portray it as.

I know you keep hearing this, but maybe that's because it's true. You should read more Lynn, real, scholarly books. If you put so much effort and care into having views about America and politics, you'd do well to educate yourself so you know what you're talking about. Learn about American history as it really was, not as it appeared on a popular T.V. show or as your white parents nostalgically remember it. Leave it To Beaver is as accurate a representation of life in the 50's as Friends and Entourage are of life today, and I know neither of those shows remotely relate to my experience or the experience of anyone else in real life. I agree that our country is not in good shape right now, but there's no distant era you can turn to of any appreciable amount of time and say "This is when we had it right".

[Cyclonus]

For the moment, there's only one minor issue I'd like to address: when the hell was it ever "acceptable" to lynch a kid for...whistling?!!? I sincerely hope this wasn't anytime in the past 200 years.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
For the moment, there's only one minor issue I'd like to address: when the hell was it ever "acceptable" to lynch a kid for...whistling?!!? I sincerely hope this wasn't anytime in the past 200 years.


A black kid in the rural south whistled at a white woman and was later lynched.

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by electriclite
A black kid in the rural south whistled at a white woman and was later lynched.

Are we talking "hum hum I'm having fun" whistling, or "I want to have interracial babies with you" whistling?

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Scarfather
Are we talking "hum hum I'm having fun" whistling, or "I want to have interracial babies with you" whistling?


What am I, his biographer?! ;)

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
For the moment, there's only one minor issue I'd like to address: when the hell was it ever "acceptable" to lynch a kid for...whistling?!!? I sincerely hope this wasn't anytime in the past 200 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

[Brando @$$ Fat]

If you've ever seen the picture of Emmett Till after he was murdered it may just be the most gruesome thing you've ever seen.

[QUENTIN]

Yeah, this

http://www.emmetttillmurder.com/Picture%20of%20Emmett%20Till.jpg

is what several people got away with doing to a 14-year-old boy whose grand offense was to whistle at a woman in Lynn's more moral era of 1955.

[Cyclonus]

Ohhh...yes, I remember hearing about this now, though the earlier references were too vague to immediately ring a bell.

I've also looked through the article on lynchings in America, and quite frankly it makes me sick to my stomach. Thankfully, that sort of thing is extremely rare now, but it has yet to be snuffed out entirely, as the case of James Byrd sadly demonstrates.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
Ohhh...yes, I remember hearing about this now, though the earlier references were too vague to immediately ring a bell.

I've also looked through the article on lynchings in America, and quite frankly it makes me sick to my stomach. Thankfully, that sort of thing is extremely rare now, but it has yet to be snuffed out entirely, as the case of James Byrd sadly demonstrates.

The main difference between the cases is that law hunted down the killers of Byrd, where as law did its best to protect the killers of Till. It was socially accetable to torture and kill an innocent black man, which is why the killers were not convicted. Evil racism was an integral part of the more "moral" world Lynn is remembering.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

In all fairness, she never said that any of this Emmett Till stuff was moral. However, I couldn't disagree with her more on the statement that life in the 50's was an episode of Leave it to Beaver. I mean, there was a lot of economic progress and Eisenhower was doing a good job, but other than that life wasn't like that in most parts of the country. The 50's saw a rise in the middle class, something which has died out since a certain January day in 2001.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
In all fairness, she never said that any of this Emmett Till stuff was moral. However, I couldn't disagree with her more on the statement that life in the 50's was an episode of Leave it to Beaver. I mean, there was a lot of economic progress and Eisenhower was doing a good job, but other than that life wasn't like that in most parts of the country. The 50's saw a rise in the middle class, something which has died out since a certain January day in 2001.

People are bringing up Emmet Till because it's an extreme example. But the real problem was of course racism, which was ingrained to society back then. Racism still exists, yes, but at least it's not commonly supported by society, as it used to be.

The question is, if the pre 60's American society was so moral, why was it so strongly racist? These two things are strictly contradictionary: A society which is blatantly racist can't claim to be a society based on good moral values. Yes this is exactly what Lynn claims. Which means she is either wrong in her claim, or she considers racism as a positive moral virtue.

And it's not only a question of racism, the society used be opressive towards many other people than just blacks.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Tuukka
The question is, if the pre 60's American society was so moral, why was it so strongly racist? These two things are strictly contradictionary: A society which is blatantly racist can't claim to be a society based on good moral values. Yes this is exactly what Lynn claims. Which means she is either wrong in her claim, or she considers racism as a positive moral virtue.

Dude you hit the fucking nail on the fucking head. I have never agreed with a post here more. This is oh so true. Well-done Tuukka.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Tuukka
People are bringing up Emmet Till because it's an extreme example. But the real problem was of course racism, which was ingrained to society back then. Racism still exists, yes, but at least it's not commonly supported by society, as it used to be.

The question is, if the pre 60's American society was so moral, why was it so strongly racist? These two things are strictly contradictionary: A society which is blatantly racist can't claim to be a society based on good moral values. Yes this is exactly what Lynn claims. Which means she is either wrong in her claim, or she considers racism as a positive moral virtue.

And it's not only a question of racism, the society used be opressive towards many other people than just blacks.

It really depends what parts of the country you're talking about, though. Racism was the most prevalent in the south, especially in Mississippi, which has the worst history of race-related murder/torture than any other state by far. That's where I believe Emmett Till lived. Northern states, on the other hand, were not a problem. People look at the 50's as a time when racism was alive and well, but it couldn't be further from the truth. When Eisenhower got the national guard to let those girls into that school, people saw how the tide was turning. If anything, the 50's represented a time when racism was dying and putting up the fight of its life. What happened to Emmett Till was not new, certainly not for them.

One thing nobody ever mentions is how in the 1920's people suspected of being communists were being lynched as well. In fact, more suspected communists were lynched in the 1920's than blacks. The United States is perhaps the most intolerant country in the world when it comes to accepting other forms of government. Now we think racism is horrible, but Communism is still bad. If I were to say "Why do we care what kind of government they prefer as long as they don't hurt anybody?" I would've been lynched back then and ostracized now.

[MadsenOMC]

I see your point, but I don't think it's true to say that problems like racism only existed in the south in the 1950s and that in that decade racism was being done away with. What about MLK, Jr. and Malcolm X? Or Medgar Evers?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I see your point, but I don't think it's true to say that problems like racism only existed in the south in the 1950s and that in that decade racism was being done away with. What about MLK, Jr. and Malcolm X? Or Medgar Evers?

I'm not saying racism was being done away with, but there was more action in government against racism. MLK and Medgar Evers were the ones demanding more action and as a result, a few unhappy people took matters into their own hands. X was killed by his own people so I don't think I'd include him with King & Evers.

Let me rephrase what I said earlier about racism in the south. Racism was a much bigger problem in the south. Not to say that it didn't exist elsewhere, but you can't say that racism in Wisconsin was as deep as it was in Mississippi or Louisiana. The Cleaver family, who many people associate with 50's morals and values, probably didn't live near any black people. It wasn't a problem for them because blacks still had lower paying jobs and lived in different neighborhoods. Life was hard but they didn't have to fear lynchings or racist legislation that would make it impossible for them to vote. In the south, you had a lot more poverty, and the idea that blacks could soon make just as much, if not more, than whites scared the shit out of white people.

[MadsenOMC]

I'm not saying that racism was the same everywhere, just that it still existed in the north. The north in the 50s and 60s had plenty of race problems. Milwaukee had race riots then, as did other places in the north.

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I'm not saying that racism was the same everywhere, just that it still existed in the north. The north in the 50s and 60s had plenty of race problems. Milwaukee had race riots then, as did other places in the north.

This is very true. I live in Washington and actually learned a couple years back that well over 100 blacks were lynched in this state between the 40's and 50's.

[Lynn7]

You guys are saying that the 50s was a big fake. That really it was a horrible time when everything was hidden but families were living in abject misery. Yessh. You guys are all so darned educated.

Yes, there was racism and there will always be hatred of others who are different- who look different and who beleive differently. After all, in this enlightened time of the 2000s, I am always treated here with the utmost respect, lol!

But there was not rampant recreational sex going on in the 50s. There were not a million abortions a year and there were not 50% of marriages ending in divorce. What about education? Were there 25% of kids in the 50s who did not graduate college and who were out shooting each other down on the streets and terrorizing the streets in gangs? Did people in the 50s watch porn on their computers and watch movies that gloriifed serial killers? Gee, I don't remember hearing those things about the awful 50s.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You guys are saying that the 50s was a big fake. That really it was a horrible time when everything was hidden but families were living in abject misery. Yessh. You guys are all so darned educated.

Yes, there was racism and there will always be hatred of others who are different- who look different and who beleive differently. After all, in this enlightened time of the 2000s, I am always treated here with the utmost respect, lol!

But there was not rampant recreational sex going on in the 50s. There were not a million abortions a year and there were not 50% of marriages ending in divorce. What about education? Were there 25% of kids in the 50s who did not graduate college and who were out shooting each other down on the streets and terrorizing the streets in gangs? Did people in the 50s watch porn on their computers and watch movies that gloriifed serial killers? Gee, I don't remember hearing those things about the awful 50s.


You probably didn't hear it because it wasn't on television. I'm sure if they had the same abortion procedures available back then there would be a similar percentage of abortions then as there are now. There was debauchery in the 50's, make no mistake. Peggy Sue did harcore drugs while having sex in dark alleys and Wally Cleaver masturbated every night. They just weren't nearly as open about it because back then they wanted to pretend life was paradise. The economy was great and we saw a rise in the middle class, so they decided to capitalize on it and make it seem like it was a dream society.

QUENTIN also made an excellent point on the divorce rate earlier. Women didn't leave their husbands because a lot of them were horribly abused, and back in those days it was socially acceptable to beat your spouse. Also, the Catholic church had a much stronger grasp on Catholics back then. Nowadays, Catholics get divorced just as much as Protestants. Oh no, we're no longer listening to the man in the pointy hat! God help us all!

Oh, and if you want to talk about drugs and gangs, why not mention the fact that the entire crack epidemic can be traced back to the CIA trying to fund illegal operations in South America? After all, it's all the gangsters' fault, right?

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
It really depends what parts of the country you're talking about, though. Racism was the most prevalent in the south, especially in Mississippi, which has the worst history of race-related murder/torture than any other state by far. That's where I believe Emmett Till lived. Northern states, on the other hand, were not a problem. People look at the 50's as a time when racism was alive and well, but it couldn't be further from the truth. When Eisenhower got the national guard to let those girls into that school, people saw how the tide was turning. If anything, the 50's represented a time when racism was dying and putting up the fight of its life. What happened to Emmett Till was not new, certainly not for them.

One thing nobody ever mentions is how in the 1920's people suspected of being communists were being lynched as well. In fact, more suspected communists were lynched in the 1920's than blacks. The United States is perhaps the most intolerant country in the world when it comes to accepting other forms of government. Now we think racism is horrible, but Communism is still bad. If I were to say "Why do we care what kind of government they prefer as long as they don't hurt anybody?" I would've been lynched back then and ostracized now.

I actually talked about "pre 60's". I think it's pointless to talk about only 50's, because if the the "moral age" lasted only for a few years, it renders the whole conversation pointless.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But there was not rampant recreational sex going on in the 50s. There were not a million abortions a year and there were not 50% of marriages ending in divorce. What about education? Were there 25% of kids in the 50s who did not graduate college and who were out shooting each other down on the streets and terrorizing the streets in gangs? Did people in the 50s watch porn on their computers and watch movies that gloriifed serial killers? Gee, I don't remember hearing those things about the awful 50s.

Can you please support these claims with facts Lynn? Also, it would be hard to use a computer to watch porn when computers didn't exist. If 50% of marriages didn't end in divorce, it was because women didn't have equal rights and stayed in awful marriages beause that was a reality of the time. Do you think a majority of women today think that women had it better in the 1950s? Of course not. Not any women with a brain in their head. It is hilarious to think that some people actually believe that in the 1950s America was some utopia. We've said it before Lynn, but you really need to read more.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Can you please support these claims with facts Lynn? Also, it would be hard to use a computer to watch porn when computers didn't exist. If 50% of marriages didn't end in divorce, it was because women didn't have equal rights and stayed in awful marriages beause that was a reality of the time. Do you think a majority of women today think that women had it better in the 1950s? Of course not. Not any women with a brain in their head. It is hilarious to think that some people actually believe that in the 1950s America was some utopia. We've said it before Lynn, but you really need to read more.

Where do you guys get your information? Have you talked to people who lived in the 50s? I have talked to hundreds of them and they mostly speak with fondness. Women were submitted to their husbands to a great extent (they stayed home to care for kids while the men went out to work so it was a way of life). But are you guys saying that men have it in them to beat their wives as a rule? I find that very offensive. I think men who beat their wives are not the norm- not then and not now.There was porn back then but because it was hard to get, there was less access. People are temptable but society managed to keep the perversions in check.

Women with any brain in their heads thnk they have it better now than in the 50s? Well, that is what the feminist movement has trained women over the years.

Women used to stay home to care for the kids. They would cook, clean the house and clean clothes etc. Men would work.

Now, women have kids, pay for day care and then come home and care for the kids, the house, the clothes and cook or organize food for the family. Men work but for the most part don't take a huge role in housework or child care. That is the experience of almost every woman I know with the rare exceptional husband who is really pitching in. And of course that is for people who stay married.

For women who are divorced they have to do everything with only one paycheck and some child support that they often have to chase down in court every other month. LIfe is very hard for the divorced women (50%).

Yes, I would say that any woman with a brain in her head could see that their lives are much better now than in the 50s!

[Badbird]

All I can say is... "Wow."

Though I seriously doubt you've talked to "hundreds" of people alive in the 50s. I can't even claim to have spoken to hundreds that were alive in the 90s.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Where do you guys get your information? Have you talked to people who lived in the 50s? I have talked to hundreds of them and they mostly speak with fondness. Women were submitted to their husbands to a great extent (they stayed home to care for kids while the men went out to work so it was a way of life). But are you guys saying that men have it in them to beat their wives as a rule? I find that very offensive. I think men who beat their wives are not the norm- not then and not now.There was porn back then but because it was hard to get, there was less access. People are temptable but society managed to keep the perversions in check.

Women with any brain in their heads thnk they have it better now than in the 50s? Well, that is what the feminist movement has trained women over the years.

Women used to stay home to care for the kids. They would cook, clean the house and clean clothes etc. Men would work.

Now, women have kids, pay for day care and then come home and care for the kids, the house, the clothes and cook or organize food for the family. Men work but for the most part don't take a huge role in housework or child care. That is the experience of almost every woman I know with the rare exceptional husband who is really pitching in. And of course that is for people who stay married.

For women who are divorced they have to do everything with only one paycheck and some child support that they often have to chase down in court every other month. LIfe is very hard for the divorced women (50%).

Yes, I would say that any woman with a brain in her head could see that their lives are much better now than in the 50s!


I dunno, I for one talked to my family and my boss. And I know people in their 60's who can attest that many in their generation were "technical virgins".

I beg you to bring that subject up with all those people you say you speak with about life in the 50's.


You don't mention that getting married and having kids was the end all be all expected of women. College was considered a waste of time or at best a good place for a girl to find an educated husband. Let's not forget the added bonus of not really having much to say in issues of your family's finance, because that's your husband's job and he doesn't have run things by you in that area same as you don't have to run things by him when it comes to maintaining the house. That's ALL you.

At least now its a choice to stay at home and raise the kids, not a given.

I'm sure your nursing degree would've been considered cute till a nice boy came along and sweeped you off your feet. Then of course you'd be totally dependent on him. Of course you'd better pray he really is one of the good ones. You know: Not secretly gay, a commie, a lothario who only got married cause it was that time (but still didn't wanna give up the single life), a secret pill popper. Not saying every man then fit those criteria, but in a time when divorce was frowned upon do you really want your future happiness on that roulette wheel?

Yes divorce is rampant now, and non-divorce even with good reason was rampant then, but society in general has always had a prediliction towards the extremes. I don't like the extreme examples stating that "every woman was abused by her husband". But the fact is we don't really have an accurate number because society in the 50's, like you said, kept things in check, that doesn't mean it magically made all the nasty bits disappear just made the engagers in them close the blinds when they did and the sufferers shut their mouths.


Btw, did you happen to know that the drug valium came out in the 50's? Back then it wasn't uncommon for the perfect 50's mom to knock back a few yellow pills when she was feeling a bit stressed and harried from the joys of motherhood. So often in fact the pills were affectionately referred to as "Mother's Little Helper".

Why the need for pills in this grand old age? I dunno, maybe cause perfection is a hard bit to pull off 24/7. Especially if you're just middle class.

You say the 50's kept the piccadillos of the population in check and I say they just kept their dirty deeds out of the light of society. Their families just had to shut up and deal with it, because God knows they wouldn't want other people to know about it then....... or now(?)

You wanna know why I don't believe in the veneer the 50's created so well? Because I grew up a long time ago and realized that anything that perfect looking is most likely bogus. Life ain't no bowl of cherries now, but I got brain enough to know that I can better handle what this time-period serves me rather than one I've had no personal experience with.

[Lynn7]

I never said life in the 50s was perfect and that everyone was moral back then. Society was more moral back then. We have a country here where people from all over the world were coming in and trying to find a way to live together. The first country to ever do that like we have. And we have done an awesome job. Were people discriminated against? of course. My mother speaks of times when her relatives were very ostracized cause they were Irish. The Black people had it really hard cause they came over as slaves and then had to break free from that. All that had to take time to resolve and even after all these years there are still hard feelings toward people who are different. I see it every day here when people bash people from different political viewpoints.

WAs life in the 50s like an episode of Leave it to Beaver. Well for many it was. The father went to work and the mom stayed home. The kids went to school and came home and ate dinner with their parents. Teh parents and the kids talked to each other. The kids had friends and went outside to play. That was pretty typical of the average life back then. Of course not everyone in America lived that life. That was never my point. But to paint the 50s as some big cesspool is totally innacurate.
Now, in this present time of the year 2007 I would say we are definitely living in a cesspool.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I never said life in the 50s was perfect and that everyone was moral back then. Society was more moral back then.

Now, in this present time of the year 2007 I would say we are definitely living in a cesspool.

You really can't say that one time was more moral than another; and to say that right now we're in a cesspool is just not true. I dont know where that is coming from but compared to history, no group of people have ever lived as well or comfortably as us.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Tuukka

The question is, if the pre 60's American society was so moral, why was it so strongly racist? These two things are strictly contradictionary: A society which is blatantly racist can't claim to be a society based on good moral values. Yes this is exactly what Lynn claims. Which means she is either wrong in her claim, or she considers racism as a positive moral virtue.

And it's not only a question of racism, the society used be opressive towards many other people than just blacks.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I never said life in the 50s was perfect and that everyone was moral back then. Society was more moral back then.

How was it more moral if it was also racist? Racism then was also not a minor or fringe thing, it was a firmly held set of beliefs which are intrinsically hateful and violent that nearly every American had and that effected every aspect of American life. So, besides just repeating that it was moral and describing what middle and upper-class families did on a day-to-day basis, can you explain HOW society was "more moral" then if it was blatantly and terribly racist?

Also, if you expect to be taken seriously at all, you need to immediately stop comparing your treatment here on this message board with the suffering of black Americans before the Civil Rights movement.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes, there was racism and there will always be hatred of others who are different- who look different and who beleive differently. After all, in this enlightened time of the 2000s, I am always treated here with the utmost respect, lol!

Originally posted by Lynn7
All that had to take time to resolve and even after all these years there are still hard feelings toward people who are different. I see it every day here when people bash people from different political viewpoints.

Mentioning you being "bashed" or disrespected on a movie message board as a comparison to the violence, rape, lack of legal rights, and constant mistreatment faced by people of color in the first half the 20th century and before is incredibly insulting and representative of your complete lack of compassion or care for anyone who isn't just like you.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
How was it more moral if it was also racist? Racism then was also not a minor or fringe thing, it was a firmly held set of beliefs which are intrinsically hateful and violent that nearly every American had and that effected every aspect of American life. So, besides just repeating that it was moral and describing what middle and upper-class families did on a day-to-day basis, can you explain HOW society was "more moral" then if it was blatantly and terribly racist?

Also, if you expect to be taken seriously at all, you need to immediately stop comparing your treatment here on this message board with the suffering of black Americans before the Civil Rights movement.





Mentioning you being "bashed" or disrespected on a movie message board as a comparison to the violence, rape, lack of legal rights, and constant mistreatment faced by people of color in the first half the 20th century and before is incredibly insulting and representative of your complete lack of compassion or care for anyone who isn't just like you.

I think that in the 50s the standards for morality were better than they are today. You would never see the stuff on tv that you see today. Now you turn on tv and you see things that used to be only in R rated movies-see any CSI show for instance.

Regarding racism- there has always been racism. So, let's say that there was racism in the 50s and there is racism now. There was murder in the 50s and there is murder now. Which time period had the greater societal standards for morality? I vote the 50s.

I don't see too many redeeming qualities about present day society. It's every man for himself as far as I can see. And it is deteriorating! At least life improved from the 50s as far as racism went. Now, life is bad for all- even the Black people who have such a huge poverty rate related to the break up of their families. Ahh, equal opportunity for poor quality of life and an immoral society.




I was not talking about "me" being bashed here but certainly people of the Republican party (President Bush etc.) are called murderers etc. That to me is behavior that shows an intolerance for a different point of view. People who are different who face hate speech or hateful behavior. It exists today as it always has.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think that in the 50s the standards for morality were better than they are today. You would never see the stuff on tv that you see today. Now you turn on tv and you see things that used to be only in R rated movies-see any CSI show for instance.

Never mind the racism issue (for a moment, at least); how does watching (fake) dead people on TV make you a bad person(which is what you really mean by immoral)?

Originally posted by Lynn7
Regarding racism- there has always been racism. So, let's say that there was racism in the 50s and there is racism now. There was murder in the 50s and there is murder now. Which time period had the greater societal standards for morality? I vote the 50s.

Even though you're argument is useless since there was FAR more racism. People were continously being killed because of the colour of the skin they were born with. They were treated as second-class citizens class citizens and barely tolerated in public. Nowadays we're staring at the possibility of a black man becoming president, so quit trying to compare shit like "50 years ago we'd have you upside with a fucking fork up your ass." to actually doing it. Racism was vastly more common and powerful during your moral times.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't see too many redeeming qualities about present day society. It's every man for himself as far as I can see. And it is deteriorating! At least life improved from the 50s as far as racism went. Now, life is bad for all- even the Black people who have such a huge poverty rate related to the break up of their families. Ahh, equal opportunity for poor quality of life and an immoral society.

Lynn, TheDeadWalk made this point once, and I hope others make it since it seems to be effective: if the 50's were so great, how come we decided to change? Your story is like saying that Adam and Eve were never kicked out of Eden, they just decided to get up and leave.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I was not talking about "me" being bashed here but certainly people of the Republican party (President Bush etc.) are called murderers etc. That to me is behavior that shows an intolerance for a different point of view. People who are different who face hate speech or hateful behavior. It exists today as it always has.

Why is it that you support Ann Coulter's venomous rants against EVERYONE even remotely associated with the left, claiming that her rhetoric is fair and not out of line, when a single person cannot be insulted without his critics' being called "intolerant", despite the fact that he's just an individual who actually hurts and ruins thousands of people's lives?

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I was not talking about "me" being bashed here but certainly people of the Republican party (President Bush etc.) are called murderers etc. That to me is behavior that shows an intolerance for a different point of view. People who are different who face hate speech or hateful behavior. It exists today as it always has.

If everyone has to tolerate other people's viewpoints, then we oughta close this forum.

[shoe1985]

A lot of the things nowadays are more accepted. Similar things happened back in the day that we would consider tame today. I think we are growing up and becoming more mature. We have expanded our culture to allow for different tastes to be given a chance. Now of course there are controls and always will be.

Times change, but I like to consider that we are more acceptable to things. Who would of thought a black man and a woman would be close to becoming President? These should be cheered on by everyone, and put down because of race or gender.

If I remember correctly, the 50's were all about feeding your family. Taking jobs that would allow for that. Seems pretty much how things are today. More and more people are losing their homes because they can't afford them. People are scraping what money they have to pay for gas for the week so they can get back and forth to work. See times changed, but things will always be the same.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by shoe1985
Times change, but I like to consider that we are more acceptable to things.


I'm willing to be that's the "problem".

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I'm willing to be that's the "problem".

Probably. Older people hate what younger people do, it has been like that for generations. I still here people saying when they were my age they didn't do the stuff my gen does, but they did it, just differently. Teens always went out to parties and have sex.

[The Postmaster General]

"Where do you guys get your information? Have you talked to people who lived in the 50s? I have talked to hundreds of them and they mostly speak with fondness."

Most old people say things were better when they were kids. Have you actually found an overwhelming group of people 65 - 70+ y/o who sit around and say, "Let me tell ya': when I was a kid - man, it sucked. Things were worse back then. You kids today really have things together, unlike kids from my generation. We were all wrong." (???????????)

Of course they say things were better when they were young. Someone who lived in the 50s would have to be at least 60 now - 70, if they REALLY lived. Of course they speak of the 50s with fondness; that was probably the last time they had a vigorous sex life.




But are you guys saying that men have it in them to beat their wives as a rule? I find that very offensive. I think men who beat their wives are not the norm- not then and not now.


"One of these days, Alice, one of these days, POW." <INSERT LAUGH TRACK, BECAUSE AMERICAN AUDIENCES DON'T FIND SPOUSAL ABUSE FUNNY>

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Of course they speak of the 50s with fondness; that was probably the last time they had a vigorous sex life.


What are you talking about? People didn't do such things in the 50's. Didn't you ever watch Leave it to Beaver?

[Criminal Rock]

Whats wrong with Leave it to Beaver?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
Never mind the racism issue (for a moment, at least); how does watching (fake) dead people on TV make you a bad person(which is what you really mean by immoral)?



Even though you're argument is useless since there was FAR more racism. People were continously being killed because of the colour of the skin they were born with. They were treated as second-class citizens class citizens and barely tolerated in public. Nowadays we're staring at the possibility of a black man becoming president, so quit trying to compare shit like "50 years ago we'd have you upside with a fucking fork up your ass." to actually doing it. Racism was vastly more common and powerful during your moral times.



Lynn, TheDeadWalk made this point once, and I hope others make it since it seems to be effective: if the 50's were so great, how come we decided to change? Your story is like saying that Adam and Eve were never kicked out of Eden, they just decided to get up and leave.



Why is it that you support Ann Coulter's venomous rants against EVERYONE even remotely associated with the left, claiming that her rhetoric is fair and not out of line, when a single person cannot be insulted without his critics' being called "intolerant", despite the fact that he's just an individual who actually hurts and ruins thousands of people's lives?

It has become so ordinary to see people who have been mutilated and murdered that you can see all kinds of grotesque disfigurations on shows on tv! Do you really think that is or should be normal? It used to be that only the cops looked at that stuff and they were all screwed up mentally because they had to see that stuff. Now it's all OK?! No one should eveer have to look at that crap. It's glorified now.

I agree that there is less overt racism now than back then but can you condemn an entire generation of people because racism existed? OK then condemn the entire history of the world. And are you saying we are so much more moral because Black people are no longer lynched?Well, they are dying in far greater numbers in present times then they ever did back in the 50s so what is up with that? Is society more moral towards the Black people now than it was back then? How do you judge? Yes they can do everything the White people can but certainly life is worse for everyone now than it was back then. Black kids are getting slaughtered in the streets every day.This is in the year 2007!

We didn't decide to change from the 50s. Black people fought for their rights and they won equal treatment over a long period of time and adjustment. People didn't decide to change as much as they were made to change. And again it is the slippery slope that changed us. First came birth control and then free sex and then promiscusous recreational sex. First came tv and husband and wife sleeping in separate beds and then husband and wives in same beds and now they have simulated sex on regular tv and of course if you have a pay channel you can see sex on tv or even real porn if you want to order that. Did anyone decide this in the 50s or even the 60s? It just slips and slides to get there.

Ann Coulter is very intolerant and if you disapprove of her attitudes then you should never want to emulate that in your politics.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I agree that there is less overt racism now than back then but can you condemn an entire generation of people because racism existed? OK then condemn the entire history of the world. And are you saying we are so much more moral because Black people are no longer lynched?Well, they are dying in far greater numbers in present times then they ever did back in the 50s so what is up with that? Is society more moral towards the Black people now than it was back then? How do you judge? Yes they can do everything the White people can but certainly life is worse for everyone now than it was back then. Black kids are getting slaughtered in the streets every day.This is in the year 2007!


I don't know, but the bad places are mostly gone for blacks. Hell, go to Harlem and it is actually a normal place compared to say 20 years ago. There are really no "Hoods" anymore. You will hear people talk about the hood, but they are pale imitations of what they once where.

If anything, you could say blacks and whites are switching places. Whites are dressing up like blacks would, and blacks are dressing the way whites would.

As for comparing history, you will notice we have made some very positive strides, but we also seem to take a step back in other areas. It is just the way it is. In fact, I would say things have gotten better.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
It has become so ordinary to see people who have been mutilated and murdered that you can see all kinds of grotesque disfigurations on shows on tv! Do you really think that is or should be normal? It used to be that only the cops looked at that stuff and they were all screwed up mentally because they had to see that stuff. Now it's all OK?! No one should eveer have to look at that crap. It's glorified now.


Really?

Warning:


*****GRAPHIC IMAGES OF "MORAL" BRUTALITY AND MURDER*****




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Lynching-of-will-james.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e3/300px-Lynching-of-lige-daniels.jpg

http://www.theblackmarket.com/ProfilesInBlack/lynching.GIF

http://prisonplanet.com/images/january2005/020105bgrove3.jpg

http://www.iwchildren.org/eagle1/lynch7a.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Lynching-of-jesse-washington.jpg





*****END GRAPHIC IMAGES OF "MORAL" BRUTALITY AND MURDER*****



You just have no idea what you're talking about. At the end of the day, it's as simple as that. You show your unmitigated ignorance in every thread you enter and then decline any real information provided to you. You have no concept of history except what you've learned from sanitized pop culture. You're saying fake violence on T.V. is worse than real violence and making the argument that society cannot be condemned for racism. You're basically an advocate of everything wrong with this country.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Really?


You just have no idea what you're talking about. At the end of the day, it's as simple as that. You show your unmitigated ignorance in every thread you enter and then decline any real information provided to you. You have no concept of history except what you've learned from sanitized pop culture. You're saying fake violence on T.V. is worse than real violence and making the argument that society cannot be condemned for racism. You're basically an advocate of everything wrong with this country.

You are just so sweet.

If it was only on tv then I guess it wouldn't be a problem but what we see on tv has infected our culture at every level.. There is not one week that goes by where at least 3 Black or Hispanic kids are murdered in MY neighboring community. Multiply that by all the commnities in 50 states. If I had the energy, I could go around and get lots of pics or obits to put your pictures in the shade. How many kids are mowed down in drive by shootings? Are those lives not as important as the people who were lynched?


And the fake violence in tv and movies seems to be impacting society in another way. There are EXTREME numbers of abductions, rapes, murders and molestations that go on in our country every day. And now of course they are talking about something new called "gorno" which is being brought into our media. Wonderful! A new depravity that will infiltrate our society! but of course I am overreacting cause I am so dumb. Really it is quite wonderful in our society. A very moral time is this one.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

QUENTIN, I know you're a moderator, but....


PLEASE NEVER POST THAT SHIT HERE EVER AGAIN! AGH!


I could go for about a bottle of prozac right about now.

[Thrizzle]

If we have 'Spoiler' alerts, we should also get 'Soul crushing imagery' alerts as well.

[Lynn7]

From Yale:

After 1892, lynchings declined quite steadily until about 1905, when there were sixty-two. No material change occurred for nearly twenty years. There was an annual average of sixty-two lynchings for the years 1910 to 1919. However, beginning in 1923 lynchings began to grow markedly fewer, and in the late 1930s and 1940s trailed off and became rarer. During these two decades, the annual rate of lynchings dropped to about ten and three respectively. Although the actual number of lynchings declined after 1892, the percentage of Black victims increased.

This decline has never been fully explained. There has been much speculation about this matter, but several logical reasons have been considered responsible for this steady decline in lynchings. Some have suggested the growing distaste of Southern elites for anti-Negro violence, particularly Southern women and businessmen. Others mention the increasing urbanization of the South during the 1930s and 1940s. Moreover, statewide police systems were developed which were willing to oppose local mobs, and the National Guard was increasingly called to stop lynchings. Also, Southern newspapers began frequently to denounce lynchings.

The work of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was tremendously effective in awakening the nation to the urgency of stopping lynching. The NAACP, an interracial civil rights protest organization founded in 1909, made thorough investigations of lynchings and other crimes committed against Negroes, and informed the public concerning them. In 1919 the NAACP published Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States, 1889-1918, which was a revelation of the causes of lynching and the circumstances under which the crimes occurred. Beginning in 1921, the NAACP sponsored antilynching legislation such as the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill and numerous other proposals to make lynching a federal crime.

The sharp decline in lynchings since 1922 undoubtedly had something to do with the fact that early in that year the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill was passed in the House of Representatives. The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill provided fines and imprisonment for persons convicted of lynching in federal courts, and fines and penalties against states, counties, and towns which failed to use reasonable efforts to protect citizens from mob violence. It was killed in the Senate by the filibuster of the Southern senators who claimed that anti-lynching legislation would be unconstitutional and an infringement upon states’ rights. However, the long discussion of the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill was of great importance to the decline.

Southern white organizations also began to condemn lynchings during the two decades before World War II. Among them were the Commission for Interracial Cooperation, which did research and issued publications which provided additional facts on lynchings, and the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching, which was founded in Atlanta in 1930. Various other women’s organizations in the South were also active in the struggle against lynching.
________________________________________________

Seems like the lynchings didn't have too much to do with the 50s anyway. So much for my ignorance.

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Seems like the lynchings didn't have too much to do with the 50s anyway. So much for my ignorance.

You're a lost cause.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Seems like the lynchings didn't have too much to do with the 50s anyway. So much for my ignorance.


What does that even mean? Late-30s Germany didn't have anything to do with the Holocaust; it was the assholes in power during that time which did.

This, compiled with your notion that old people who were alive in the 50s are fond of their youth is proof of the 50s being better ---- You're inability... your attempts at connecting incongruous facts reminds me of Mad Magazine's movie spoofs.

[Lynn7]

You guys all are incedible. But at least you have each other as a mutual admiration society. I'm glad you don't see the 2000's as they are cause you might get depressed. Keep telling yourselves how much better we are as a society than the way we were in the 50s. As long as you all agree, you don't need any evidence to back up your case.

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You guys all are incedible. But at least you have each other as a mutual admiration society. I'm glad you don't see the 2000's as they are cause you might get depressed. Keep telling yourselves how much better we are as a society than the way we were in the 50s. As long as you all agree, you don't need any evidence to back up your case.

Do have some kind of opposite blanket you can squeeze that marvelously makes everything in the world seem like it is tailored to your disturbingly contorted views of history, the world, and life?

[Lynn7]

My viewpoint was pretty much the norm until these recent times when everything has been turned upside down. You have the opposite view from all the great wisdom of the ages. And I speak not only from bible wisdom but from wisdom of the great literary minds of the world. The respect for life is of highest value or should be. From what I see in comments around here, there is little respect for life- euthansia and abortion are all good around here. That is the morality of the 2000s. And yet there is so much reverence for the plight of the Blacks in history. I wonder how they would hold up if they were just starting their fight today. There are many people who are too willing to lynch people for their political views let alone the color of their skin. Or to lynch/behead people for their religion. That will be the biggest issue.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You guys all are incedible. But at least you have each other as a mutual admiration society. I'm glad you don't see the 2000's as they are cause you might get depressed. Keep telling yourselves how much better we are as a society than the way we were in the 50s. As long as you all agree, you don't need any evidence to back up your case.

I can go by what my grandparents have told me. It is hearsay, but my grandparents were very respectful people. They would tell me stories about blacks being taken on the streets and beaten in front of everyone. Lynching was a common thing, you couldn't go a week without seeing one it seems.

I have not seen much black on black violence, hell I see more woman and men fighting than anything. Mainly over one of them cheating on the other.

I guess you could say it depends on where you live, but coming from a poor to middle class neighborhood, I haven't encountered much violence.

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by Lynn7
My viewpoint was pretty much the norm until these recent times when everything has been turned upside down. You have the opposite view from all the great wisdom of the ages. And I speak not only from bible wisdom but from wisdom of the great literary minds of the world. Want me to post a few hundred proverbs? You might benefit from reading them.

As I post minimally on this subforum you have no concept of my beliefs or politics, as this is the ONLY subforum you post in, yours are abundantly clear, and if you think yours coincide with great literary minds, by all means, try to prove it, and don't squeeze the opposite blanket.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You guys all are incedible. But at least you have each other as a mutual admiration society. I'm glad you don't see the 2000's as they are cause you might get depressed. Keep telling yourselves how much better we are as a society than the way we were in the 50s. As long as you all agree, you don't need any evidence to back up your case.


When did I say the 2000s were great?

All I said is that it borders on comical that you would actually cite an old person talking fondly of their youth as evidence of anything other than old people think things used to be better.

As far as evidence that the time we live in is better - where is your faith? I believe the time I'm living in is worthy simply because I am alive during this time. Isn't there some thing about respecting and loving the world we live in because it is part of God's plan? Why would I want to shun the world I live in simply in lieu of wanting to make people anxious and depressed for being alive when they are alive?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Scarfather
As I post minimally on this subforum you have no concept of my beliefs or politics, as this is the ONLY subforum you post in, yours are abundantly clear, and if you think yours coincide with great literary minds, by all means, try to prove it, and don't squeeze the opposite blanket.

I have posted in other forums as topics have interested me. But you don't know anything about me. This generation is indeed extremely different in its outlook from any past American generation. I do see similarites with other political persuasions. Maybe you can guess what I am thinking since you seem to know so much about me-you won't have much trouble.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Goddamn, people, let's relax for a minute. Let's have a cool down period. Back to Cindy Sheehan....


Oh wait, she's not interesting anymore. Nevermind.

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I have posted in other forums as topics have interested me. But you don't know anything about me. This generation is indeed extremely different in its outlook from any past American generation. I do see similarites with other political persuasions. Maybe you can guess what I am thinking since you seem to know so much about me-you won't have much trouble.

I know only as much about you as dozens upon dozens of inane posts have shown me, as this is what I just said, as well as the challenge you just tapdanced around, I'm going to assume you just quoted me, taking extra care to never actually read the post, and typed up a reply that doesn't actually reply to anything I posted.

Good show.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
When did I say the 2000s were great?

All I said is that it borders on comical that you would actually cite an old person talking fondly of their youth as evidence of anything other than old people think things used to be better.

As far as evidence that the time we live in is better - where is your faith? I believe the time I'm living in is worthy simply because I am alive during this time. Isn't there some thing about respecting and loving the world we live in because it is part of God's plan? Why would I want to shun the world I live in simply in lieu of wanting to make people anxious and depressed for being alive when they are alive?

Wasn't the original debate about if Leave it to Beave accurately represented the time period? I have not talked to just one old person from that time period. I have met hundreds of people from that time period. Because of my jobs etc and even the people I have met in the course of my life. They did not go out and persecute Black people. They lived quiet family lives. Just because abuse and racism etc existed, it does not mean the entire generation was evil as some are trying to imply. I just do not get the current mindset. Professors are undermining everything in an effort to brainwash the youth of today and it is working. There is no questioning of the bad things that are going on all around us. The professors would have you think that life is no worse now than it has ever been. It is not true.

We live in the time we live in and there is nothing we can do about that but I am not going to say what is going on in our society is good just cause I am living during this time. Let me stand with just a few to say that the values of today are lacking or nonexistent. We can't close our eyes to the way things are unfolding around us.

The Earth is a beautiful place and there are so many things to appreciate and enjoy but I cannot love this world. Everyday there are so many evil things that go on. I do not love this world. I do feel that I should give to people in need. A smile, a hug, a kind deed, an errand, a donation, or anything that I can do to try to improve life for someone is what I try to do. I know that so many people are very unhappy or lonely and I try to help with that as much as I can. My job right now is very fulfilling in that respect. I feel like I am really making a difference in people's lives. As far as my faith goes, my point of view is very much in line with Christianity. There are many verses about the corrupt nature of this world. It talks about how the world is dying etc. So, it also talks about us being a blessing to others.

And these are the things that American society used to stand for. People helping people.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You guys all are incedible. But at least you have each other as a mutual admiration society. I'm glad you don't see the 2000's as they are cause you might get depressed. Keep telling yourselves how much better we are as a society than the way we were in the 50s. As long as you all agree, you don't need any evidence to back up your case.


Evidence? We've been piling this forum with evidence up the ying yang, but apparently after reading this post I'm gathering that you've been reading this thread with a blindfold.

Does it really make you or anybody else happy going about your day pining for a time that no longer exists?

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! That's the very definition of depressing!

Life was much more fun for me in the early 80's, and I regale myself time and again with a little nostalgia, but I know I can't go back and as fun as things were for me then I'm realistic enough to admit that there were some sucky times too.

I optimistically look ahead to more good times for myself, instead of looking back and constantly depressing myself with a memory of a time, or worse, someone else's memory of a time.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Scarfather
I know only as much about you as dozens upon dozens of inane posts have shown me, as this is what I just said, as well as the challenge you just tapdanced around, I'm going to assume you just quoted me, taking extra care to never actually read the post, and typed up a reply that doesn't actually reply to anything I posted.

Good show.

Since my replies are inane, it doens't really matter. On the other hand, I have found that your posts have contained great insight.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
Evidence? We've been piling this forum with evidence up the ying yang, but apparently after reading this post I'm gathering that you've been reading this thread with a blindfold.

Does it really make you or anybody else happy going about your day pining for a time that no longer exists?

Jesus, Mary and Joseph! That's the very definition of depressing!

Life was much more fun for me in the early 80's, and I regale myself time and again with a little nostalgia, but I know I can't go back and as fun as things were for me then I'm realistic enough to admit that there were some sucky times too.

I optimistically look ahead to more good times for myself, instead of looking back and constantly depressing myself with a memory of a time, or worse, someone else's memory of a time.

When did I say I was pining? I compared morality of the 50s with morality of the 2000s.

Blindfold huh? So I say that in today's society we have rampant murders, rapes, (1 million) abortions a year, drive by shootings, molestations, abductions and glorify violence in movies and tvs and you guys say wait- there was racism in the 50s. So all the things I mentioned are totally disregarded and racism rules the debate- but when I enter in from Yale college info that lynchings were rare in the 50s that point is simply ignored and I am insulted.

Just once I would love to see one of you debate 10 people of the opposing viewpoint who had to get their shots in about you reading posts with a blind fold and saying inane things. It's really a great experience. Have a nice day!

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Blindfold huh? So I say that in today's society we have rampant murders, rapes, (1 million) abortions a year, drive by shootings, molestations, abductions and glorify violence in movies and tvs and you guys say wait- there was racism in the 50s. So all the things I mentioned are totally disregarded and racism rules the debate- but when I enter in from Yale college info that lynchings were rare in the 50s that point is simply ignored and I am insulted.

ALL OF THOSE FUCKING THINGS HAPPENED DURING THE 50'S! The only ones that didn't place are those evil, unholy 'slippery slopes' are when people in the U.S. were offered drugs, abortion, freedom from religion, massive reduction of censorship in the media, an a much more open attitude revolving sexuality, along with a slew of other free choices for the American people, and like a bunch total retards they were (and still are), they had the audicity to choose to watch violent TV shows, to choose to listen to profanity-laced music, to choose to see tits getting sucked on in the movie theaters. These are also the same people who finally learned to accept blacks as equal citizens and allow gay men to gather and do as they please, without fear of a police state to monitor behavior they found inappropriate, despite the ZERO negative effects it had on those who didn't want it to take place.

Rape, murder, and all those fucking things you mentioned have always taken place in society. It's the human race's curse. Your bullshit 'slippery slope' analogy is idiotic, since your saying we achieved a nigh-uptopia (minus them pesky, hung negroes you're reluctant to talk about), only to give it up to live in squalor, destruction, immorality and filth. Nothing at all slippery about that: people simply decided to live their lives the way they wanted. They were offered and chose the ones you opposed, so now you spew this dribble about how they were practically tricked.

It's obvious coming from your posts you support an allmighty state to govern the individual's ideas. No abortions, no violence, no sex must be permitted for the individual to have access. Most of his decisions in life have to be made by a guy who's trying to plot ways to kill people in other countries all the time, since he's apparently 'moral'. Your analogies between America past present have been laughed out here, but it makes me wonder: is America (before Bush [peace be upon him] saved it from all it's horrible, horrible free choice) a worse place than apartheid South Africa? You spoke of how the US's murder rate would lessen dramatically if people stopped watching fictional stories where the sight of a fake corpses makes them decide to go out and shoot up latinos and blacks. What about these rather juicy facts from South Africa:

The National Party government implemented, alongside apartheid, a program of social conservatism. Certain movies, gambling and other vices were banned. At the same time, it instituted the International Freedom Foundation. Printed or filmed pornography (of even the mildest variety) was banned and its possession was punishable by incarceration.

Television was not introduced until 1975 because it was viewed as immoral by the authorities. Even after the introduction of TV, broadcasting was initially restricted to a few hours a day.

Sunday was considered holy. Cinemas, bottle stores and most other businesses were forbidden from operating from Saturday afternoon until Monday morning. Abortion and sex education were also restricted; abortion was legal only in cases of rape or if the mother's life was threatened.

Of course, there was that pesky issue of them jailing those uppity negroes who had to nerve to demand they be treated as equals. However, by all accounts this is exaclty what fits your defintion of a 'utopian society', one where the state makes the right decisions for the individual.

So I simply ask: which is better; Apartheid South Africa, or Abortion-laden America?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Wasn't the original debate about if Leave it to Beave accurately represented the time period? I have not talked to just one old person from that time period. I have met hundreds of people from that time period. Because of my jobs etc and even the people I have met in the course of my life. They did not go out and persecute Black people. They lived quiet family lives. Just because abuse and racism etc existed, it does not mean the entire generation was evil as some are trying to imply. I just do not get the current mindset. Professors are undermining everything in an effort to brainwash the youth of today and it is working. There is no questioning of the bad things that are going on all around us. The professors would have you think that life is no worse now than it has ever been. It is not true.


Lynn, you could talk to 1,000,000 old people from that time period and it would make no difference, because my point is that 100% of old people agree, things were better when they were young. I don't know how else I can state that. There are embittered old people here and there, but the overwhelming majority of old period, regardless of when they were alive, seem to think things were way better when they were kids.

You know, I bet God said to Jesus, at some point, "In my day I had to make a universe in 6 days, and I was better off for it. Everyone I spoke to listened to me, hardly ever a question asked. Now, you kids have to worry about being persecuted for spreading my word. It was way better back in the day."




We live in the time we live in and there is nothing we can do about that but I am not going to say what is going on in our society is good just cause I am living during this time. Let me stand with just a few to say that the values of today are lacking or nonexistent. We can't close our eyes to the way things are unfolding around us.

The Earth is a beautiful place and there are so many things to appreciate and enjoy but I cannot love this world. Everyday there are so many evil things that go on. I do not love this world. I do feel that I should give to people in need. A smile, a hug, a kind deed, an errand, a donation, or anything that I can do to try to improve life for someone is what I try to do. I know that so many people are very unhappy or lonely and I try to help with that as much as I can. My job right now is very fulfilling in that respect. I feel like I am really making a difference in people's lives. As far as my faith goes, my point of view is very much in line with Christianity. There are many verses about the corrupt nature of this world. It talks about how the world is dying etc. So, it also talks about us being a blessing to others.

And these are the things that American society used to stand for. People helping people.



So, basically you believe the world is beyond redemption and that Jesus died in vain?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove



Lynn, you could talk to 1,000,000 old people from that time period and it would make no difference, because my point is that 100% of old people agree, things were better when they were young. I don't know how else I can state that. There are embittered old people here and there, but the overwhelming majority of old period, regardless of when they were alive, seem to think things were way better when they were kids.

You know, I bet God said to Jesus, at some point, "In my day I had to make a universe in 6 days, and I was better off for it. Everyone I spoke to listened to me, hardly ever a question asked. Now, you kids have to worry about being persecuted for spreading my word. It was way better back in the day."








So, basically you believe the world is beyond redemption and that Jesus died in vain? [/B]

You are right that you cannot take people's word for which time period was better. I use that as one piece of evidence. The other things I mentioned are more objective. Abortionfor instance. There were illegal abortions back then and women were disfiured and /or died. But there were not one million US abortions a year.

I have not looked up murder statistics for the 50s but I am sure they were no where near what they are today. and that goes for rapes etc.

People had premarital sex back then but it is not like it is today. Kids are having sex in broad daylight on the school bus or in the classroom. Girls are lining up to service guys. That is new to our time period (at least in the US- maybe it is the same thing that happened in other corrupt time periods of human history like the Roamn empire or something).

I have seen a drastic change in our culture in just the past 10-15 years. It is amazing to me! And I am not looking backwards with rose colored glasses about 15 years ago. It is worse now and I do think the media is partially to blame- tv, movies, music etc. I think the colleges have become brainwashing centers as opposed to places where people are challenged to learn to think and test their thoughts. Now the kids better all think in one way. And for the most part they do!

I don't think people are less evil now then they were back in the 50s. The sin nature has always been the same in man according to the Bible. But the culture has been corrupted and that makes it easier for the sin nature to take over the part of the man that aspires to a higher way of life. Where are you going to do better- in the library where structure is expected or at a sex club? At a library you may secretly be fantasizing about having sex with two women but at a sex club you will be more likely to engage in that behavior. In the 50s there was still the desire to do wrong but you are more likely to do it in the 2000s.

And even as I write this i can see someone coming back at me saying "Who are you to judge that it is wrong for a man to have sex with two women." 10 years ago that question would never have even have been asked cause it would have been looked at as really wicked to even think it would be ok to have three way sex. That is an indication of how our society has changed- everything goes and no one should judge other people's behavior-everything goes.

And Jesus died to save us out of this world, not to save this world. This world is dying. That is what the Bible says anyway. So his death was not in vain.

[MadsenOMC]

In America in 1966, the homicide rate per 100,000 people was higher than it was in 2004. Throughout the 1950s, the homicide rate per 100,000 people was barely lower than it is now. This idea that America was a peaceful place back in the 50s and 60s is ridiculous and FALSE. I will find more statistics soon. They are easy to find on the Web. And they prove Lynn wrong.

[The Postmaster General]

And just to add to the facts Madsen laid out, the murder rate among blacks has been steadily decreasing.

This is another example of using facts as evidence of an unrelated conclusion. Of course there are more rapes, murders, and what-not since the 1950s --- There are twice as many people alive in the US today than there were in the 50s.

[Lynn7]

Today I heard on the news that there are over 2,100 people reported missing every day. Was it higher than that in the 50s too?

[MadsenOMC]

I don't know if they kept accurate statistics on missing persons back in the 1950s. But Lynn, if they did, you should be able to find out easily. Just like I easily found out that the 1950s and 1960s were just as violent as today.

[Lynn7]

WHat I could find on murder statistics is that murders have decreased in number from the 70s but that the murder rate increased dramatically after the 50s. But here is something interesting that I found:

In the 1940s and 1950s, homicide rates were relatively low and stable. Two types of homicide were most prevalent: homicide between family members, usually husbands and wives, and homicide between two males known to each involved in an argument. From the 1960s into the 1990s, UCR data indicate that homicide between acquaintances and friends was the most predominant form, ranging from a high of 51 percent of the total in 1963 to a low of 34 percent in 1995. The percentage of homicides involving acquaintances dropped during this time, and since 1990 has been superseded by those where the relationship between the victim and offender is unknown. There has also been a decline in family-related homicide, varying from 31 percent of the total in 1963 to a low of 11 percent in 1995.

Based on Uniform Crime Reports, arguments are the predominant precipitating event in homicides, through time. However, in the 1970s and early 1980s there were many homicides in large cities associated with robberies, and in some large U.S. cities in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was an upsurge of homicides related to narcotics trafficking. The number of homicides for which police do not know the precipitating circumstance showed the greatest increases in the last quarter of the twentieth century in the United States; despite this increase, the majority of homicides still involve victims and offenders who are acquainted.

_______________________________________________-

So now more murder just for the sport of it instead of being really angry about something. That explains the killings of clerks for the $100 in the convenince store cash box. Sign of our times.

[MadsenOMC]

What is URC? I got my statistics from the FBI. So are you saying that it is worse to kill someone for $100 than to kill your spouse?

[MacReady]

Answer me Lynn! I spent 30 minutes writing that fucking post. I wanna know if what you thought was the better nation.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
Answer me Lynn! I spent 30 minutes writing that fucking post. I wanna know if what you thought was the better nation.

You mean the post where you put words in my mouth than I never said and then implied that I was racist? I think I'll pass on responding to that one.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You mean the post where you put words in my mouth than I never said and then implied that I was racist? I think I'll pass on responding to that one.

How's my question out of line? South Africa exibited all the 'good moral qualities' of the 50's, including those pesky lynchings you wish people here wouldn't bring up so often. On the other hand, in the US under the Clinton administration drug use were commonly refered to in the media, gays were allowed into the millitary (ablbeit covertly) and shows like CSI and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit were becoming popular.

You're crying about being called a racist when in this thread you're saying we should all strive to go back to a time when blacks were often killed because of their skin, then declared it wasn't that bad a price to pay for your Leave it to Beaver utopia. At best your insanely insensitive about the plight of blacks.

So I ask once again: which was the more moral country? Yours or theirs?

(How many schmoes are as curious as I to see Lynn answer? Come, don't be shy now).

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
What is URC? I got my statistics from the FBI. So are you saying that it is worse to kill someone for $100 than to kill your spouse?

Here is the site:
Site (http://law.jrank.org/pages/1322/Homicide-Behavioral-Aspects-Victim-offender-relationships.html)

I wouldn't say it like that. I think that it seems that the nature of crime is different today than it was back then. Murder is as old as Cain and Abel. It's just that our society seems to have become so depersonalized and it is reflected in many of our issues as well. Abortion is OK cause the baby is depersonalized. Sex is depersonalized too- you don't need to have a relationship to have sex- just do it for fun with anyone.Again, there were always people who engaged in impersonal sex but it is more normal today. It is acceptable behavior for everyone.

I think that it is so sad that someone would rob a convenience store to get $100 and then kill the cashier. I guess it is the same mentality that the people who did the lynchings had. People are the same today and yesterday. I am glad there are no more lynchings but that does not prove our society today is more moral. I have listed many reasons why I think we are less moral today than we were in the 50s. I guess it is a matter of opinion.


On the first page of the thread I started out by saying that we no longer agree as a society what is moral anymore and I guess it is true. We can all agree that racism was bad but the other stuff that goes on today is a matter for disagreement.

[Lynn7]

MacReady, I was not going to reply to you but i guess I have to point out that I would NEVER think it was okay for black people to be lynched so that white people could live in utopia. Don't make up things. It is an egregious offense.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
MacReady, I was not going to reply to you but i guess I have to point out that I would NEVER think it was okay for black people to be lynched so that white people could live in utopia. Don't make up things. It is an egregious offense.

What about all that crap you spewed about how blacks were better off under racism than all the immorality they live in today? You claimed they were better off then, and when lynching came up, it didn't deter your view that the 50's were still better (which were totally great because you didn't have to risk seeing a fake corpse on screen).

And you still haven't answered my question.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
What about all that crap you spewed about how blacks were better off under racism than all the immorality they live in today? You claimed they were better off then, and when lynching came up, it didn't deter your view that the 50's were still better (which were totally great because you didn't have to risk seeing a fake corpse on screen).

And you still haven't answered my question.

If that is what you get from reading my words then please do not ever try to paraphrase me again.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But are you guys saying that men have it in them to beat their wives as a rule? I find that very offensive. I think men who beat their wives are not the norm- not then and not now.


Originally posted by Lynn7
In the 1940s and 1950s, homicide rates were relatively low and stable. Two types of homicide were most prevalent: homicide between family members, usually husbands and wives....




Lynn, you've made domestic violence funny again.

[Scarfather]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If that is what you get from reading my words then please do not ever try to paraphrase me again.

I think you need to reread your words.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes, there was racism and things could be hard for many Black families and yet the familes stuck together and worked through hardships. Now families are no more. Especially in the African American community, the marriages have been disappearing and life in a way is much harder for the kids than it even was during racism. At least people stayed together and were committed to each other. That is worth a lot. That is morality, IMO. Committment and loyalty.

Nice try Lynn. I may have used some straw-man, but you said the 50's were way better because of inane shit like strict control over what we were allowed to watch, and that it really hasn't gotten that better for blacks, even though as many people have stated their living conditions are starting to improve.

Now answer my question: Africa or America? I'll keep posting this till the end of time if need be.