Barack had opinionated on the genre by saying, "I enjoy it, but these days I don't have the time to listen to it all the time,"

For more info, go here.

Agree: The way which I agree on to what Barack said is I personally think that Rap is a way for artists to show their own personal experiences from their neighborhoods  which provide the rest of us with ways to prevent the many terrible situations which happened to them. This does in fact as Barack said will impact our culture in a positive way.

Disagree: Now I do not disagree on this topic but the reason to which I disagree is because some Hip Hop Artists have not experienced the troubles of these bad neighborhoods and the things that they talk about have no way to provide our Culture with positive feedback.

Well there you have it folks this is my opinion and please comment with your own opinion or you can opinionate on my opinion if you know what im saying lol.

Now Virginia Beach is seriously considering light rail again.  But there really isn't much to talk about here but the idea that the leadership there is at least open and receptive to the idea.  The residents most likely are not, for many of the same reasons they have been against other public projects that they will have to pay for that someone else would use, like the Convention Center for example.  Good news if you're in Norfolk wanting to travel to Virginia Beach, bad news if you are in Norfolk and people in Virginia Beach would prefer that you stay in Norfolk because of the bad element that you bring to VB, or perhaps you are that element yourself.

People cry foul and suggest or hint at racism concerning this?  I'm not so sure why anyone is surprised and am speechless nor why anyone would be; if you have money in HR you would and probably already have moved to VB to get away from those who do not.  If you have a little bit of money, but not a whole lot, you have probably already moved to Chesapeake and if you're one of the better off working poor but can see the middle class at the end of the tunnel you probably found your way to Suffolk.  The misnomer is that entire cities are just ghettos, like Newport News or Portsmouth.  The reality is that there are better areas in each city, just that the overall economic conditions in each city point to a different perception.  Even Virginia Beach has slums if you are willing to go out of your way to find them.

Of course the bridges are still in poor shape; considering the age of these bridges, I am thankful that I do most if not everything in Chesapeake and Norfolk and do not have to travel across these.  I feel sorry for anyone who does, in fact my heart and prayers go out to them.  But if you're complaining about Virgina Beach keep in mind that no one in the region has to go there any more than anyone in New York has to go to Manhattan.  Chances are if you have one of those better jobs in which you could afford to live there comfortably you don't have those issues to begin with.  It's just the human nature of classism and socioeconomics rearing its ugly head.  There is plenty everywhere, those that actually wants the little bit of money that you have to spend, without your having to endure the indifference you perceive on the Beach.

That said, it does not mean anything to me that Chevy Chase despises Sarah Palin, as it does not mean anything to me that others love her. Chevy, why do you despise her? The answer to that question does interest me. Perhaps you could answer it, rather than stammer over your words and say, “I hope Fey decimates her. I can't believe this woman is running for Vice President.” Specifically, Chevy, what issue do you have with her; or is it an issue with her that you cannot put into words?

Perhaps the issue with Sarah Palin is that she has stolen the limelight from liberal candidates like Barack Obama? Conservatives, of which Sarah Palin is one, cannot be fascinating people. Sarah Palin has to be boring and for some reason she is not. It makes no sense whatsoever, so let's call for the decimation of Palin. The rock star image, fascination with Barack Obama did not lead anyone to call for a decimation of him by Saturday Night Live, but Sarah Palin definitely deserves it because Chevy says so.

I am waiting Chevy, for your list of issues with Sarah Palin. Let me help you out with a list of things that totally and completely disqualify her from ever again participating in politics. How could these things have been overlooked?

Number one, she is a woman. How dare her think that she can participate in a man's sport, and politics is definitely a man's sport. There was Hillary, but let's ignore that fluke. Number two, she is way too conservative. Yes, having an opinion that does not agree with the liberal point of view is not acceptable. Crucify her for that! Next, she stood up to the critics who slammed her and her family for reasons that have nothing to do with politics. This female had the audacity to ignore the critics and move ahead and take a position with respect to her message. She just did not realize that her position should have been fetal; blubbering and crying…like a…well…a woman.

The world is with you Chevy. We have to stop Sarah Palin and Saturday Night Live is the proper venue for it. Forget that SNL is a comedy show…oh, the one on which you got your start, correct? Look at all of the great comedy classic movies in which you starred. Those movies certainly make you qualified to shape politics in America.

Work with me here. Let's be serious for just a minute. Chevy Chase is a comedian and a very good one. Caddy Shack is one of my favorite movies and he has made many other great comedy movies as well. Surely, given the fact that he is a comedian, Chevy does not believe we will take his opinions about political candidates as fact unless he supports his position with facts. Come on Chevy! Give me just one shred of evidence to support your ramblings.

Here is why you want Tina Fey to decimate Sarah Palin. You have a bruised ego. Your candidate came onto the scene and swept the nation by storm. Barack Obama was, and still is to some degree, a rock star. He was wiping the floor with his opposition…well not exactly with Hillary when you examine the facts. However, he did get the nomination of his party, barely. Take nothing away from Barack Obama; he is a mesmerizing figure who makes John McCain look like a bumbling old man who is senile and cannot read off a teleprompter. In Sarah Palin, Barack met his match.

Something I like about Barack Obama is the fact that he does know how fortunate he is to be in America, where a woman can run for a man's job of President. He also knows how fortunate he is that he lives in America where a black man can run for a white man's job of President. When Barack entered the scene he brought freshness to the political scene, something very exciting and mesmerizing to the world. All silliness aside, Barack, Hillary and Sarah have taken long forward strides; the Chevy Chase attitude sets back those forward strides.

Sarah Palin burst onto the scene. She is tough, gutsy, holds audiences in the palm of her hand like Barack Obama held them. In short, Chevy, she took away the limelight from your candidate and that is not acceptable because you are famous, thus consequential, and those who flock to her are not famous, thus inconsequential.

The inconsequential crowd should not be able to elect a President…right? Wait, I just looked, the constitution gives each person, consequential and inconsequential, one vote on Election Day. Go figure, my inconsequential self matters just as much as the consequential Chevy Chase. It is that thing called democracy. Give it a try Chevy! You may learn to like it.

Sarah Palin's lack of experience and the severe strain that it places upon the credibility of McCain's decision making under fire are not what her candidacy will ultimately represent. A candidate is added to a ticket to shore support in areas of weakness. A guns and pro-life soccer governor is what John McCain believes he is adding to the ticket and he is correct. The real curiosity of the decision is that it is a no-winner and he must certainly know it.

There could be two possible ways to interpret a no-winner: A) a Hail Mary pass or B) an experiment to gain lessons for the future. Many pundits will accept the Hail Mary hypothesis simply because the second option is unspeakable. No candidate would throw his own election.

Or would he? What if the candidate did not believe he ever had a chance of winning? What if the candidate had lost control of his own message due to an over reaching political party? What would be the recourse of such a candidate? Could it be possible the only upper hand such a candidate could exert would be to attempt to reclaim what he believes his party should be by dumping the election on guns, God and butter Republicans?
Ronald Reagan famously expanded the ranks of the GOP by inviting the Moral Majority to share the tent with traditional and fiscal elite Republicans. It made perfect sense by the numbers and it guaranteed a continued strong hold on the executive branch for the foreseeable future. Now, the grand bargain has begun to fray at the edges for all constituencies.

Christian conservatives have been cynically compartmentalized into two issue politics: abortion and gay marriage. Fiscal conservatives are aghast as the party of financial restraint has become the party of no tax but spend anyway. Goldwater Republicans watch with a wary eye as the government becomes a larger and larger entity in the personal affairs of her citizenry.
Meanwhile, Republicans continue to lob stones at the Democrats from glass houses. Democrats are portrayed as a house divided. No more obvious difference to exploit than the Clinton v. Obama dynamic that the spin-meisters have whipped up into a fury. Laughably, the Republicans tout the experience of Hillary Clinton in a Rovian campaign world in which there are no boundaries of ethics, truth or party affiliation. The Democrats defended themselves deftly at their convention with Bill and Hillary answering that the policies of Clinton and Obama are virtually the same. They, too, are aboard the Obama train. Regardless, Rovian politics continue the strongest when they wish to deflect observation on the very issues they attack. In this particular case, the issue is party unity. It is the 2008 Swift boat, built to distract. What is it that they do not want discovered about their own party? That discord is rife amongst their electorate as each faction begins to feel betrayed and underserved.

Once upon a time, there were plenty in the Republican Party that would cheer a candidate for owning seven houses. It would be the embodiment of what it meant to be an American, the fulfillment of Our Dream whether it was through hard work or inheritance. Oddly, this is not the wing from which John McCain originated.

McCain came to Washington the son of admirals, bound by and rightfully respected in his military tradition. Having fulfilled his military requirement with duty and honor, his Party was that of traditional military strength, of American might and moral authority. McCain has sadly realized the shreds of tradition which remain of this wing are substantially weakened. Such a man could easily gain a reputation as a maverick when the forces he really opposes are within his own party.
After years of slash and burn politics in which the political cycle never ends, there may be forces rising in the Republican Party that are gravitating to Barack Obama's implore, "Enough!" These forces want to see a return to civil politicking and the clear distinctions between parties, not within them. These are the kind of stark terms that a man of the military admires. Indeed, this Maverick may understand that he needs to lose the battle in order to win the war. Without fanfare, the Ultimate Maverick and military hero may have outflanked Karl Rove. The only way not to betray his own core beliefs is to lose on purpose and thus begin to wrest the GOP back to its roots.

Whenever a new fad appears another one disappears. Technology has suddenly become available to pretty much EVERYONE. Finding someone who does not own a cell phone can be a difficult task. Most households in the U.S. have 2-3 TV's if not more. Computers, game consoles, mp3 players are apart of most people's lives. So with all of this new technology, this "fad", appearing, what has disappeared?

Relationships are a beautiful thing. And perhaps a disappearing "fad". Years ago if you wanted to talk to someone you had to wait to see them, or write them a letter (on paper with a PENCIL!). You could not just shoot an email or call them up. Even when phones were standard in every house they were not the MAIN focus of the house. When cell phones did come out they were HUGE and very expensive. So in those days it was much easier and more affordable to simply talk to a person face to face. This obviously develops a closer relationship than what we do nowadays! For instance if two people were fighting at some party and left without it being resolved. They can TEXT each other and make it all better without having to look each other in the face. The overuse of phones , email, and IM have made many relationships superficial. If you only text or type to one another how can you build a true friendship? Is it even worth the time? What all this technology has done has made us forget the value of having a conversation face to face. People text their friends who are ten feet away! Go talk to them! Use your voice! It has made our relationships weaker and superficial. Texting , email and IM are quite convenient at times! No one is arguing that those things in and of themselves are bad. But the overuse of them is!

The 1950's was a decade of elation and prosperity. Soldiers were back from the war beginning families and cementing family values into the American culture. A "clean cut" generation was the product of the 1950's. Why bring this up? Well look at the changes from then to today! An ideal day for a young boy in those days was a day playing ball outside. Today the ideal day would be playing computer games or texting. Technology has decreased our appreciation for the simple pleasures of life! Like being outside, being with family, doing active things as opposed to staring at a computer screen!

Another way that technology has changed our culture is that the world is small! Anyone can be a few clicks from anywhere! Traveling places is expensive but way faster than before! We know so much about other parts of the world because those places are only hours away! Maybe they are even a call away. It can even lessen the beauty of our earth simply because we are so used to everything! An image search on the internet can bring up pictures of animals you have never seen or even heard of. There is so much information at the fingertips of everyone, so much so that the information has lost its preciousness.

Technology has changed our lives. It will continue to change our lives. However we can strive to go back to the way things were back in the day. When one wants to text or IM. Go for a walk or a drive and talk to that person face to face! Get out in the world, travel, explore the world for yourself. Do not take the internet's word for it! Go see the world. Go experience people IN PERSON. Technology is a great thing and we should be grateful for what it can do for us. However we need to control our use of it by not letting it control us. If we can do that, our relationships, culture, and lives will greatly improve.

So if I have an opinion about something that's different than yours, that makes me a "dumbass?" This kind of thinking should allow me to say the same about you, since your opinion is different than mine...or, is there a double standard here?The fact that guns and religion have been used to carry out many atrocities throughout time doesn't make them evil, as you seem to argue. Problems stemming from the evil use of guns and religion can be attributed to those who would use them to gain and hold power.

While you argue the historical harm, in which guns and religion played a role, I could argue the historical opposites, where people could not defend themselves because they were not allowed to have weapons, and were punished because they believed in something of faith. Our country, the Unites States of America, was formed because we did not want to be controlled. We wanted to be free and have a right to be religious (or not to be religious); we did not want to be unarmed and vulnerable, while those with power were armed. We wanted our right to defend ourselves and our family, and be able to defend our freedom whenever it was threatened. (There are those who do not realize that freedom can be snatched from us in a hurry.)Not only are guns used as a means of defense, we also use them for recreation, competition and in sports, the same as knives and such. They are only harmful when they are in the hands of those who would harm others

Because our country is a democracy ("by the people; for the people"), we delegate our individual power to those who we believe more closely represent our own beliefs and values...that is the reason for voting. Obama does not represent my beliefs and values, and from what I have seen and know about him, I believe he is an elitist. As a responsible voting American citizen, I need to do all I can, legally, to prevent him from becoming our next president. Isn't this what you want to do…oppose candidates you do not want in office?

• We don't need another four years - or even worse, eight years - of Republicans. This country needs a change (I know, that buzzword) and change would come with a Democratic President.
• Not only does the U.S. need a change, it needs a change that will get people excited again and mix things up to make them truly different than any Presidential term to date. With that said, a young black (or half-black) President is more needed than another old white one. Although I personally would have loved to see a woman finally become President, Hilary didn't quite cut it in the race. My next choice is obviously Obama.
• The main argument against Obama is that he's inexperienced. I think this is a good thing. The way that people are doing things now in the White House are the same as they've been doing them since the Revolutionary War. And they're definitely not working too well nowadays. A new guy should come along and show us the way he thinks things should be done. Chances are it'll work because it'll be different.
• Obama wants to get out of the war quickly. McCain wants to get out the “right way”, but the “right way” is also the long way. At this point, I don't think people care much about how we get out of the Middle East; we just simply want to get out.

I have nothing against McCain; I think he's a great war hero. My father met McCain's Hanoi Hilton roommate and listened to him tell stories about McCain's heroic acts. Like something out of a Sylvester Stallone or Chuck Norris movie, they tortured him yet he never told them what they wanted to know and he stayed incredibly loyal to the U.S. The guy can't lift his arm all the way up because his muscles were ripped out in torture. I have great respect for him, but I don't think he should be the president.

As Taz Arnold of Sa-Ra said, “This is real and not for play, I'ma vote Obama way.”

1. Tibet has been part of China's territory since the 1200's A.D. (Yuan Dynasty)

   Many people believe that China stole Tibet's independence 50 years ago; however, the truth is, since the 13th century, Tibet has mostly been a protectorate of the Chinese Empire; only during the turmoil at the end of the Qing Dynasty (around 1900) did the Tibetans gain a brief independence. (NPR.org).
   
   
   

2. Tibet cannot possibly prosper as an independent nation.

   Tibet is a landlocked mountainous nation that lacks natural resources. Most of the resources used there are brought over from eastern China.



3. Contrary to beliefs, the Dalai Lama wants only a greater degree of autonomy for Tibet, not independence.

   Please refer to the website of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet.
   

4. Contrary to beliefs, Tibetans do have the freedom to worship their religion.

5. Contrary to beliefs, the Chinese government is actually trying to preserve Tibetan culture and landmarks because they attract tourism.
   
   

6. Tibetan wages are the 2nd highest of all provinces in China.

   Please refer to the website of the BBC.
   

7. Tibetans do not have to obey the 1-child policy.

8. Tibetans have gained much higher living standards.

   After China regained Tibet in the 1950s, hospitals, schools, and infrastructure were built. Life expectancy for Tibetans has increased from 35.5 in 1950 to 67 in 2000. (BBC News).
   

9. Old Tibet's Feudal Theocracy

   Before the 1950s, Tibet was a theocratic despotism ruled by aristocratic monks who lived like kings. Not only did the peasants (the majority of the population) of Tibet not have any rights, they were extorted by the monks as serfs and forced to pay extremely high taxes. Since most of them could not pay off their taxes in their lifetime, the taxes passed down to their children and entire generations had to work as slaves. (Parenti, Michael. Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth).
   

10. Old Tibet's Evil Society

    The religious teachings of old Tibet emphasized that the poor and suffering are that way because of their wicked ways of previous lives. This is why the Tibetan serfs never revolted against society. In feudal Tibet, because it was against Buddhist teachings to take someone's life, torture and mutilation - including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation - were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. In 1951, China came in and immediately put an end to these practices; the Tibetan people at that time actually welcomed the Chinese soldiers as liberators. (Parenti, Michael. Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth).

On March 14, 2008, Tibetans started a large scale riot in Lhasa, attacking and murdering people of Chinese ethnicity on the streets, and burning and looting shops and buildings belonging to people of Chinese ethnicity. In light of these actions, two rhetorical questions present themselves: What difference is there between the actions of these people and that of terrorists? And, how is a group of terrorists worthy of such pity from the international community?

Please do not blindly advocate an idea or movement just because so many other people are doing it. One should always take the time to first research both sides of the idea or movement and decide for oneself which side is more logical.

But don't ask him if McCain was right about the surge, because he'll tell you his idea was better even though all of congress voted for it. No matter how you look at it, Obama is enjoying acting as our president. Shooting some baskets while the wife sits among selected soldiers does not make one the leader of the greatest free country in the world. I can tell you from experience that the Army only selected Obama supporters and desk jockeys to attend any get together. That's Army protocol.

He was against the surge in Iraq even though he is enjoying the results of it now by putting on his little sideshow. Since he was so much against it, why does he want to use it in Afghanistan? The real fighters in the military are afraid of this clown with the big ears. He wanted to pull them out of the war and admit defeat six months ago! And all of you hippie Obama types that have fallen for his great dream speeches should realize that he's going to copy McCain's ideas for Afghanistan if you elect him. So do you vote for the copier or the person that's the real innovator and leader?