U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2019, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
38,009 posts, read 17,809,587 times
Reputation: 17407

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mofford View Post
The hard hat riot was a protest of the protesters, or a counter protest if you prefer. When you look at all the destruction that has been done by leftist protesters over the years, the hard hat riot might have been about 5 minutes of work for the average Dem mob. The silent majority stopped being silent for a few days. It was fun, and after the 60's, it has been very rare to see any right wing mob engaging in any violence or property destruction in America, as a group action.

You left out all the fun parts, MarkG. When they started beating up the hippie protesters on Wall Street, some investment banker lawyer guys came out to help them, and the hard hats beat them up too. The cops just stood around and watched as the whole thing played out. Did you know the The Kent State mob reformed after being shot at, and no sooner than it took to cart off the bodies, they were pushing for more. They had to be begged by the dean of the school to disband. The hard hats never killed anyone, after they took out the wall street lawyers with steel rebar, they went after more hippies. The stormed onto a college campus and burst into a classroom, identified the students with long hair, and beat up a few of them. Then they took over a post office and raised an American flag. They did not burn down the post office, just occupied it for a few hours. They had a parade a few days later and that was pretty much it for any serious counter protest of the protesters.

Chuck Colson reached out to the local AFL/CIO leader, Mr Meany (that was his real name, lol) to organize the construction workers, or hard hats, as they were known. I am so proud of Chuck for his effort, he should have a statue in central park, or a song written about him and the hard hat riot, like CSNY did for the Kent State dummies who should have went home and stopped vandalizing the college and the town of Kent, before the national guard had to move in and shoot them down to restore order.
You celebrate the violent violation of Constitutionally protected civil rights as a joyous event. That you have such a mentality goes far in explaining why you idolize Richard Nixon and laugh away his violations of the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2019, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Iowa
2,690 posts, read 2,954,768 times
Reputation: 3290
Well Grandstander, property owners have rights too. The conservative students who just wanted an education without the unnecessary propaganda and mobs shutting down the school, also have rights. Peaceful protest is one thing, but like most of you rabble rousers from the 60's, who cast your stones down thru the generations, you are completely intolerant when the right does any protesting. You pull the race card and use every dirty trick in your power to stop it. You go after peoples jobs for using a slur that wouldn't get a minority fired when they use a slur. You invented hate crime laws that never seem to apply to your side, but are used to book a right winger twice for the same crime. Your side attempts to curtail free speech, scams millions of dollars every year because someone called you a name, didn't serve you dinner, ect ect. But when the right protests, you scream civil rights, when your side protests, they burn, loot, destroy a billion dollars worth of property, block highways, kill cops, shut down malls, trample the rights of the innocent. Wake up Grandstander, look at the monster your generation created, and repent your ways before we fall to communism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2019, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Iowa
2,690 posts, read 2,954,768 times
Reputation: 3290
Today we have more people dying in one year from drug overdoses, than died in the Vietnam war. Every year 50K dead, mostly young people. But that problem wasn't nearly as bad, and actually faded for a long stretch after Richard Nixon formed the DEA and made war on illegal drugs. Nixon saved a million lives just from that one policy. They cut the flow of drugs so much and drove the street price so high, very few people wanted to try heroin and get a $400 a day habit and end up on skid row. We had the right kind of propaganda on TV and movies to show the ugly side of drug addiction and create a social stigma against being a junkie. That faded but at least we still had some elites that had enough moral character, among the drug companies and medical people, who were not yet corrupted by big money, to flood this country with opiates. We lost our morals, we started saying it was racist to go after crack cocaine in the 80's. More and more elites no longer have any ethical standards or morals whatsoever. This is a direct result from the media making Christianity unfashionable, and it's even worse when the elites abandon their Judeo Christian beliefs, because they run everything and sh*t runs downhill.

I don't know the end result, be it Stalinist communism, Islam, or whatever, but all this social engineering from the left has crushed the American spirit and when things get rotten enough, the whole system will collapse just like the Roman Empire. Once the money runs out, that will trigger it. We lost many of the good things we had before the 60's. Not saying we haven't made some positive gains on child molesters, drunk drivers, sexual harassment in the work place, but then we lost a bunch of people to AIDS in the 80's from immoral sexual activity and drug use, and now we are telling little boys it's OK to wear women's clothes to school, and that it's OK for men to use the women's bathroom.

Last edited by mofford; 01-10-2019 at 10:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 12:14 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
38,009 posts, read 17,809,587 times
Reputation: 17407
Quote:
Originally Posted by mofford View Post
Well Grandstander, property owners have rights too. The conservative students who just wanted an education without the unnecessary propaganda and mobs shutting down the school, also have rights. .
And therefore they were entitled to have this end achieved for them not by law enforcement officials, but by street thugs who assaulted them?

Your disregard for humanity and lawfulness, paired with your enthusiasm for brutal Brown Shirt style enforcement of political views, places you so far outside of rationality that it is clear there will be no reaching you.

Churchill defined fanatics as "...one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

There is no reasoning with fanatics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 09:00 AM
 
8,597 posts, read 8,807,556 times
Reputation: 26798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
And therefore they were entitled to have this end achieved for them not by law enforcement officials, but by street thugs who assaulted them?

Your disregard for humanity and lawfulness, paired with your enthusiasm for brutal Brown Shirt style enforcement of political views, places you so far outside of rationality that it is clear there will be no reaching you.

Churchill defined fanatics as "...one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

There is no reasoning with fanatics.
Unfortunately, I must concur. This discussion has now gone past any useful point. Some sadly are incapable of learning from history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2019, 09:24 AM
 
9,712 posts, read 3,283,234 times
Reputation: 4592
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Unfortunately, I must concur. This discussion has now gone past any useful point. Some sadly are incapable of learning from history.

was your arrogant post necessary? incapable of learning from history? NO! some just have a different view of history and conclusion than you. Now you are getting personal and shows who is really the fanatic.........those people shouldn't be in a forum or be part of any debate. They get their feelings hurt and get defensive.


under your perspective , the topic is useful as long that everybody agrees with your narrative and give you high fives and a pad on your back for everything you post. Got it!

Last edited by Hellion1999; 01-11-2019 at 09:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2019, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Iowa
2,690 posts, read 2,954,768 times
Reputation: 3290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
And therefore they were entitled to have this end achieved for them not by law enforcement officials, but by street thugs who assaulted them?

Your disregard for humanity and lawfulness, paired with your enthusiasm for brutal Brown Shirt style enforcement of political views, places you so far outside of rationality that it is clear there will be no reaching you.

Churchill defined fanatics as "...one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

There is no reasoning with fanatics.
No, your democrat henchmen are the fanatics, 3792 riots and demonstrations since 1965. Yet you fume about the "brown shirts" and this one measly little riot by right wingers, to counter protest the sea of lawlessness unleashed upon America over the decades by your generation and LBJ. I should correct what I said about the hard hat riot, it was city hall, not a post office, which they took over and raised the flag to full staff. Flags were ordered at half staff for the Kent State kids who were shot because they wouldn't stop terrorizing the campus and pelting the guards with stones. The hard hats didn't like the flags being lowered to half staff to honor them, and I don't blame them. I said it was fun because nobody was killed in the hard hat riot, and no serious damage was done. I am somewhat amused at how it bothers you and MarkG so much, when just once in a blue moon, the right dishes out a riot, when the left has been doing this for 50+ years. Not to mention intimidation at polling places, voter fraud with illegals and all sorts of other crimes against innocent people who encounter your mobs.

To be fair, I don't think Chuck Colson would want me boasting about his hard hat riot. He received a 7 month prison sentence for Watergate, and like Jeb Magruder, used his time in jail to repent. Both of them turned to religion and became ministers. Chuck wanted to improve the conditions within the prisons, and also help other prisoners find god with a non profit ministry/organization he created, Prison Fellowship, which today is the largest national outreach to aid prisoners and their families, and is active in 120 countries. In 1993, he won the Templeton Prize for progress in religion, which also included a 1 million dollar prize for which he donated to his Prison Fellowship organization, as he had always donated all his speaking fees and royalties to the fellowship.

https://www.prisonfellowship.org/about/chuckcolson/


Back to Watergate, perhaps the reason they selected the DNC at the Watergate complex was because so many people from the Nixon Administration, at least half, lived at the Watergate complex. Perhaps it irritated them the DNC was located there, or they felt more comfortable hitting a target where they were familiar with the layout. It sits right next to the Kennedy center, and has attracted political appointees from both parties over the years. Surprisingly, it also has some cheaper efficiency apartments as well, there are 5 buildings in the complex and among the more famous who live there now or in the past, Anna Chennault, Bob Dole, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Alan Greenspan, Monica Lewinski, Robert McNamara, John & Martha Mitchel, Condolezza Rice, Ben Stein, Elizabeth Taylor, Rose Mary Woods. I have never been to DC, but would enjoy a stay at the Watergate Hotel and take a tour of the complex, along with all the other usual sites to see in DC.

Watergate Complex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_complex

_________

Last edited by mofford; 01-12-2019 at 01:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2019, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
4,587 posts, read 1,518,332 times
Reputation: 6582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Churchill defined fanatics as "...one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Hard to top the Grand Old Man, but I like Santayana's definition better:

"Fanaticism is best described as redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."

Very aimless thread, here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2019, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
38,009 posts, read 17,809,587 times
Reputation: 17407
Quote:
Originally Posted by mofford View Post
The hard hats didn't like the flags being lowered to half staff to honor them,
I didn't like your post. Is it okay if I have you beaten with iron bars as a response?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2019, 04:24 PM
 
134 posts, read 24,734 times
Reputation: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by mofford View Post
Well, Nixon was paranoid of the press, and he knew the press favored the democrats, as they had since the days of FDR, and he knew the medium of television will usually favor the better looking candidate. I'm sure the press did not forget the critical remarks he made about the press, in his 1962 concession speech for governor of California. From this point on, the press was not going to cut him any slack.
The whole 'press favored the Democrats' claim is demonstrably not so. When Nixon first ran for Congress, California's 12th District represented eastern Los Angeles County, from Nixon's hometown of Whittier up to the Pomona Valley and west to Pasadena. Nixon had the full force of this area's dailies behind his candidacy. And as I noted previously, the Los Angeles Times was then a political force by which candidacies lived and died. The Times exclusively supported and endorsed Republican candidates through 1972, when it endorsed Nixon's reelection bid just like it had endorsed him in both 1968 and 1960. It then got out of the endorsement business entirely until 2008, when its endorsement of Barack Obama for President was the first time it had ever endorsed a Democrat.

The New York Times? It endorsed Dewey in 1948 and Eisenhower twice. It hasn't endorsed a Republican since, but for decades after that it was a press outlier, with most major dailies backing Republican candidates.
https://library.cqpress.com/cqresear...srre1976040900

It is simply fiction to assert that the press favored Democrats from 'the days of FDR'. It is factually incorrect, as the historical record shows and represents nothing more than an excuse to rationalize Nixon's crimes and unethical behavior.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top