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.
It was different back then ... People took more time with their appearance. They would wear jewerly that matched their clothing. Men wore cuff links and tie clasps. Women wore pearls and beads.
In school, jeans were not allowed. One had to wear dress pants or khakis. Girls wore dresses and skirts no pants were allowed..
Everyone had to have a new Easter outfit . Dressing was very important socially. The generation before, in the forties, they wore hats and women wore gloves.
Clothing was a better quality but was more expensive to buy. Now we have foreign make clothing and the cheap material makes it look shabby compared to the quality of clothing in the sixties.
No one every talks about the noise generated by these turbines.
A low monotonous whine that would drive a person crazy.
Thought about one but after being up close to one in a residential setting I knew I couldn't do it and not go crazy.
...and then if you are unlucky enough to have a rising of setting sun between your home and a wind mill, you get the flicker from the blades passing between you and the sun.
Have to agree with Kat here. Clothing is cheaper today.
When I got my first job I bought one suit. Had to do layaway to buy more.
They were expensive compared to today.
Actually, there are reasons why such items were more expensive ... namely the prolification of global slave labor. Most goods back then were made in America, by workers being paid a livable wage. Now we have imports from slave states. But, you can also find suits that can run into the thousands of dollars too. But most things cost more, back then, EXCEPT big ticket items.
To cite an example ... in 1960, a silver dollar was worth a dollar. It's now worth $22. Gas back then was 25 cents per gallon. You could buy 4 gallons for that dollar. That same silver dollar will buy 6 gallons of gas today. Though the car is another story ... the average car was around $1,200, but today, the same class ... a full size sedan will run you $30,000 and up. Is that an equitable trade off? You could buy a lot of $600 suites if that car only cost you ... say ... $5,000
But the reality is, even the car is about the same .... 1200 silver dollars will buy that $30,000 car today.
The biggest difference today is that income to costs is mated to duel incomes, while the majority of households back then were one income.
This is just the liberals trying to marginalize Reagan. He was disliked and marginalized by the RINOs of his day for expressing conservatism, the same as they are trying to marginalize Tea party folks today for expressing conservatism.
Now these same RINOs are trying to claim Reagan as their own. Sorry, but the truth is that a liberal establishment Republican in 1980, is a no different then the liberal establishment Republicans in 2013.
For forty odd years, before Reagan, the establishment Republicans in Washington just went along to get along, with the Democrats in power. Today, the establishment Republicans are going along to get along with the Democrats of today. And just like in the 1970s when Reagan dared to interfere with Washington politics, the RINOs despise the Tea party types for interfering in their "me give up" Washington politics of today.
Nobody cares about claiming Reagan other than every Republican who runs for office. The fact is that Reagan was no Cruz. He raised taxes when necessary and he was a politician who knew how to compromise and who was friends with the Democratic leaders. Nothing like the tea party radicals of today. Cruz & cronies were willing to destroy the country and the US economy unless they got their way and made it obvious how little they care about the country. Reagan would never have endorsed a government shutdown that cost the country $24 billion for the purpose of pure obstructionism.
In addition, he was a Democrat before he was a Republican. He had a great respect for the country, the government and its institutions. The modern day radicals are nihilists who are into destroying. Reagan definitely would be called a RINO today.
And as for the "RINOs" of his day disliking him--who specifically are you referring to--which RINOs?
Reagan went to great effort to separate himself from the John Birch Society, which was the precursor of the tea party.
I would take a bomb shelter drill over a terrorist lockdown drill any day of the week.
And I'd take both over a gun massacre lockdown drill. Or, hell, since I'm next door to Newtown, it wasn't even a drill at our schools on that awful day.
I imagine the people of NYC and DC felt that same fear on 9/11 and in the days following that horrendous event.
Good point. Here in western CT (a suburb of NYC ), when the power went out all over the Northeast two years later, we were terrified it was another 9/11 -- or worse -- for awhile, until the news got out over battery radios.
It was a bit disturbing, too, that two Air Force jets flew directly over our house every night for a full year after 9/11. Some kind of patrol or something.
I appreciate the dress of the 60s, but not the rigidity that it entailed. My grandmother once was scolded for showing up for work in heavy winter boots and mussed hair after walking over a mile after a snow storm to work in the secretarial pool of a law firm in the 50s. She had her heels and makeup to freshen up in a bag, but DARED walk into the office with snowy winter boots on. And all of this in a dress!
While I'm only 25, I think I only own one pair of jeans and wear tshirts only to work out or sleep in. In fact, right now I would look right at home in the 50s with a circle skirt, tights, and a cardigan over a shell in the office. And it's how I dress on the weekends as well. That said, when it's below 0 with a windchill on my walk in from the parking lot to the office, I like the ability to wear pants, boots, and a thoroughly unflattering sweater. I can throw my hair up in a ponytail and not worry too much - especially after shoveling out my car or just having a late night and sleeping in a little.
JFK served in WWII and his father was ambassador in the early 30's until removed because he spoke in favor of Hitler basically.Heck JFK supposedly dated a Nazi spy before US joined the war.He never quit sewing some pretty dangerous oaks thru out his life it seems.
People trusted Kennedy mostly because the media covered up his foibles and screwups, which he had in as full measure as any other president before or since.
They ballyhooed his bravery in rescuing his men after PT109 was rammed (as they should)... but have you seen any show questioning why he posted no watches on the boat in known enemy-infested waters in fog? Later captains were court-martialled and stripped of their ranks for lesser offenses, such as the captain of the USS Indianapolis, who failed to zigzag despite a known submarine warning, and got torpedoed.
They praised him to the skies for standing down Kruschev during the October Missile Crisis... but how many reported that the reason the Russians put those nuclear missiles into Cuba in the first place, was in response to Kennedy putting similar nuclear missiles into Turkey? Or that the reason Kruschev backed down, was because Kennedy meekly agreed to take the missiles back out of Turkey? In other words, Kennedy was the one who caved, not Kruschev?
How much publicity will the media give during the coming memorials, to the Bay of Pigs, which Kennedy did a horrible job of organizing and then abandoned our allied troops on he beach? How much will they give to his skirt-chasing, which eclipsed anything Bill Clinton ever did?
The "innocence" the media laments losing ever since Kennedy, actually didn't have much to do with Kennedy - he was just the mascot.
The "innocence" was the naivety of the American people... who were naive mostly because that same media handed them a rose-color picture of what actually went on, instead of seeking out and telling the truth much of the time, as should have been their job. And then when a venal, self-serving politician took over from JFK, the media was caught between a rock and a hard place. They couldn't start reporting on the truth without admitting they'd been hiding the truth for years, when that same venal politician had been vice-president of the administration they had raised to such lofty heights.
They didn't have much choice but to continue their coverup, through the beginning of the "Vietnam era", even as television started showing the grim truth that could not be covered up. It was a godsend when the other party finally took over and relieved them of the need to cover anything up any more. Ever since then, they've only had to cover up when Kennedy's party was in power.
The "end of innocence" was when the media realized they couldn't cover up for the people they liked, without also creating imaginary enemies of the people they didn't like, for balance. The assassination had little to do with "ending innocence" - it just made a convenient excuse.
People trusted Kennedy mostly because the media covered up his foibles and screwups, which he had in as full measure as any other president before or since.
They ballyhooed his bravery in rescuing his men after PT109 was rammed (as they should)... but have you seen any show questioning why he posted no watches on the boat in known enemy-infested waters in fog? Later captains were court-martialled and stripped of their ranks for lesser offenses, such as the captain of the USS Indianapolis, who failed to zigzag despite a known submarine warning, and got torpedoed.
They praised him to the skies for standing down Kruschev during the October Missile Crisis... but how many reported that the reason the Russians put those nuclear missiles into Cuba in the first place, was in response to Kennedy putting similar nuclear missiles into Turkey? Or that the reason Kruschev backed down, was because Kennedy meekly agreed to take the missiles back out of Turkey? In other words, Kennedy was the one who caved, not Kruschev?
How much publicity will the media give during the coming memorials, to the Bay of Pigs, which Kennedy did a horrible job of organizing and then abandoned our allied troops on he beach? How much will they give to his skirt-chasing, which eclipsed anything Bill Clinton ever did?
The "innocence" the media laments losing ever since Kennedy, actually didn't have much to do with Kennedy - he was just the mascot.
The "innocence" was the naivety of the American people... who were naive mostly because that same media handed them a rose-color picture of what actually went on, instead of seeking out and telling the truth much of the time, as should have been their job. And then when a venal, self-serving politician took over from JFK, the media was caught between a rock and a hard place. They couldn't start reporting on the truth without admitting they'd been hiding the truth for years, when that same venal politician had been vice-president of the administration they had raised to such lofty heights.
They didn't have much choice but to continue their coverup, through the beginning of the "Vietnam era", even as television started showing the grim truth that could not be covered up. It was a godsend when the other party finally took over and relieved them of the need to cover anything up any more. Ever since then, they've only had to cover up when Kennedy's party was in power.
The "end of innocence" was when the media realized they couldn't cover up for the people they liked, without also creating imaginary enemies of the people they didn't like, for balance. The assassination had little to do with "ending innocence" - it just made a convenient excuse.
Cut and paste, cut and paste. You'll spin anything and post this tripe in dozens of threads just to make the GOP sound like God's gift to America.
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.
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.
Sorry, but the truth is that a liberal establishment Republican in 1980, is a no different then the liberal establishment Republicans in 2013.
), when the power went out all over the Northeast two years later, we were terrified it was another 9/11 -- or worse -- for awhile, until the news got out over battery radios. 
