EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
If one digs through the various texts on those movements, there will be many details that differentiate one from another. But in the end, the only thing that matters, once they are implemented, is that they all end up with totalitarian dictators, kept in power by the military/police and a controlled oligarchy. Hoi polloi are reduced to peasantry. Stalin, Tito, Mao, Kim, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Castro, Chaves, Maduro -- again, not a nickel's worth of difference.
Bernie is no Hitler, to be sure. He is one, should the wrongheaded movement he espouses succeed in redefining the country, who would end up in the peasantry alongside AOC. Bernie is an example of arrested development; the hippie era was left in the ashbin of history, but Bernie didn't get the message. We are of an age, Bernie and I. I ran across a lot of his type in the 60s. I know them when I see them: Deluded Utopians unwilling to lift a finger to earn their way, dogmatic about deserving to be given whatever they want. The absolute opposite of all they claim to be.
You’re talking about me, and most of my friends, who, by the way, have all worked their asses off, Roderick.
This rhetoric harkens back to Nixon and Agnew, and Joe McCarthy before them. I guess you were a member in good standing of the Silent Majority.
Spiro Agnew, criminal:
"This is the criminal left that belongs not in a dormitory, but in a penitentiary. The criminal left is not a problem to be solved by the Department of Philosophy or the Department of English, it is a problem for the Department of Justice. Black or white, the criminal left is interested in power. It is not interested in promoting the renewal and reforms that make democracy work; it is interested in promoting those collisions and conflict that tear democracy apart."
"Yippies, Hippies, Yahoos, Black Panthers, lions and tigers alike - I would swap the whole damn zoo for the kind of young Americans I saw in Vietnam."
Heros of the so-called conservatives Nixon and Reagan on the phone yucking it up:
So to discredit and dismiss “Woodstock” outright, is to also discredit the antiwar movement.
No one anticipated such a massive turnout. It’s also important to note that Woodstock was an experiment, and corrections were made by folks like Bill Graham who avoided the naive mistakes made in upstate NY.
Your claim that attire and tonsure were war-related protests is slightly off, chronologically. The Haight-Ashbury scene was well under way in SF by 1964 when I arrived, and the war was hardly the dominant story of the day. That didn't happen until 1968. Moreover, just to be clear, the war was not of Nixon's making, as you imply. He reduced forces by 90% in his first term. The war is on JFK exclusively and forever.
I guess when you speak, it’s measured and mature, but when someone strongly disagrees with your proclamations, they are “angry” or it’s a “rant”.
Roderick Grant: “They were the ones who turned the Woodstock farm into a pot-soaked slag heap”,
If you bring up and criticize Woodstockers, I respond. Out of the thousands who attended Woodstock, how many do you think supported the war?
To which the liberal humanist says: "Wait a minute. Don't foist your heartless world view on me ! Speak for yourself, Jack. . ." or words to that effect.
(Of course, no one likes to be pigeon-holed or categorized by another; we like to choose our own in-group, and proudly proclaim ourselves Gay, or Black, or Conservative or Liberal. We may want to be associated with one group or another--but heaven help the person who beats us to it and states the obvious . . .!)
Thank you! I’ll have to remember that.
The restriction preventing Nixon from entering Cambodia to fight the Vietnamese was arbitrary at least, even capricious. It was as if Eisenhower had been prevented from treading on Belgian soil to fight the Battle of the Bulge. Nixon had to deal with a Congress as intent on obstructing his presidency as the current House efforts have been to foil anything President Trump attempted to do. Instead of Pelosi, Nixon had Ted Kennedy to deal with.
It cannot be denied that, by 1968, considering what he had been through, Nixon was not mentally stable enough to do his job. He was paranoid, and that was a tragedy. But like Kennedy and Wilson, he soldiered on with a malady that should have prevented him from attaining the high office in the first place. He did not escalate the war. Read a book! Maybe Kissinger's memoir. Nixon waded into a situation beyond control, and did his best. That he had problems (one might reasonably assume) should have brought out some sympathy rather than condemnation at every turn. Withal, he did accomplish one of the most significant efforts of modern times: As fraught as it may have turned out to be, Nixon recognized that China could not be ignored anymore, so he changed the course of history.
The hippies actually guaranteed Nixon's election by rioting against the one politician who would have ended the war forthwith: Hubert Humphrey. Come Hell or high water, Humphrey would have got us out of Vietnam within his first year of a presidency that should have been his for the asking. He may not have gone to China, but he would have reversed the disastrous Vietnam policies of LBJ. There would be statues of Humphrey by now, had he been elected.
The '68 riots in Chicago were caused by a generation of draft-eligible men/boys who didn't want to serve, and who would undoubtedly have done the same if they'd been forced into fighting in WWII, the so-called Good War. Poof, it immediately disappeared in 1972, all the angst and self-righteousness, when Nixon ended the draft.
Don't paint any administration in black and white; there have been good an bad things to come out of every last one of them. Biden will continue the trend.
I find those conclusions to be laughable, since historians agree that the Republican “Southern strategy” (using racism to lure racist Dixiecrats to the GOP), fatigue with the war, Nixon’s promise of immediate peace, and “law and order” won him the election. And you’re forgetting that assassinated RFK was the people’s choice, not Humphrey. Humphrey was tied to LBJ, being the Vice President. Kennedy would have beat Nixon handily.
I cast my first vote in 1972 for George McGovern. The war was still raging. My draft lottery number was 5. Because I am white, I received 4f status for flat feet. I wondered then and now, how many young blacks with flat feet were sent to kill and die?
There was no way I was going to Viet Nam in 1971. I would have left the country, and my parents by then would have supported my decision. So whether it was Kennedy’s or Johnson’s war, Nixon kept it alive and well.
You are correct about one thing: Hubert Humphrey was cowed by LBJ. The "Happy Warrior" lacked that anatomical appendage so often associated with male bravery. He was sidelined early in LBJ's administration for daring to contradict the president. (There's a true example of Fascism if ever one set foot on US soil.) If LBJ had allowed that HHH was smart enough to get some wood on the ball occasionally, the war could have ended during his administration. HHH should have resigned from his post and taken up an anti-war stance. Chicago wouldn't have happened, and HHH would have won the presidency. As it is, HHH's legacy is as one of the most dogged supporters, from the day he arrived in DC in 1948, of civil rights. LBJ signed the bill, but it was HHH who did the lion's share of the work for 16 years.
By the way, I didn't blame Kennedy for Nixon's actions re Vietnam. Kennedy's outrageous behavior during the Robert Bork hearings set the tone for Supreme Court hearings from the left ever since. RBG went through the gauntlet without any attack from the right, while Kavanaugh and Barrett were dragged through the mud by Feinstein, Schumer and Schiff.
I guess I should have voted for a proven criminal instead of “the ultimate opportunist”? (Btw- I’ve never heard that exact claim before, and have no idea what it might be in reference to. I realize that he made disastrous political mistakes.)
It seems you prefer your presidents paranoid, slightly insane and ultimately impeached, as opposed to those who appeal to idealism.
(Oops, another -ism!)