Which are we - Woodstock or Moonwalk?

[foxpaws]

This summer, this program is going to dedicate itself to correcting the founders, the progressive era in the early turn of the century and the summer of '69.

<snip>

There were two major camps in america.

Those whose imaginations were captured by the spirit of adventure, innovation, ingenuity, the apollo project.

And those who were the sex, drugs and anti-establishment mud people of woodstock.


This is amazing - that you have to be one or the other...

Either you were the hippies of Woodstock or the geeks of the Apollo program... there is no in between - it is either/or - white/black...

I wonder how all those tea party people think about this - because a lot of them were Woodstock... Remember Woodstock was yes to peace and love and no to war. A grassroots movement. It was a capitalist event... $18 to attend...

NASA was a huge government program - huge.... Just exactly what Beck states he is against. Big, big government, really big. Pushed by progressive liberals - really progressive liberals - Kennedy and Johnson.

Is the man nuts? He has obviously spent a lot of time on this - he is going to spend this whole summer on this.

Here is the transcript if you really need it - but you should watch this -

YouTube- Woodstock or Moonwalk?

 

[Calabrio]

This is amazing - that you have to be one or the other...
Either you were the hippies of Woodstock or the geeks of the Apollo program... there is no in between - it is either/or - white/black...

Again, misinterpretation on your part, but truth has never been something that held much interest for you.

While I don't think this was a particularly good segment (again 5 minutes, without context, towards the end of his show), the broader point and imagery is one that is quite interesting and often forgotten. The moon landing and Woodstock were just one month apart. People usually don't remember that. They remember them independent of each other.

The two events represent a very deep distinction in the American culture and values of the time.

I wonder how all those tea party people think about this - because a lot of them were Woodstock... Remember Woodstock was yes to peace and love and no to war. A grassroots movement. It was a capitalist event... $18 to attend...

Again, you demonstrate that you have absolutely no regard for the truth. And I just happen to know a lot about that music festival because I used to spend my summers up there.

They sold tickets to the concert, but the people who attended didn't pay. A great many of the people who bought tickets couldn't reach the concert sight because it had been over run by the dirty free loading hippies.

And it wasn't a "grassroots movement." It was either a music festival crashed by hundreds of thousands of freeloaders OR it was a commercial music festival financed by investors who were hoping for a success similar to that of the Monterey Pop Fest- that was over run by freeloaders and lost a tremendous amount of money and cause huge amounts of property damage. They didn't make a profit on the event until years later due to the album and movie.

NASA was a huge government program - huge.... Just exactly what Beck states he is against. Big, big government, really big. Pushed by progressive liberals - really progressive liberals - Kennedy and Johnson.

This point was the vulnerability in the monologue, knowing full well that people like you would really zero in on that, distort it, and make that the focus.

Kennedy wasn't a "really progressive liberal," the political myth constructed within minutes after his death defined him as such. Johnson absolutely was.

Beck clearly is a guy who thinks visually and he chose to compare two hugely significant UNIFYING cultural events that took place during the same summer. The example wasn't about the role of government, or how we should fund the space program, but about unifying social events.

With that said, the space program is easily justified and defined as a military program, and as such, it's appropriate to be a public/private cooperation, but that's not the subject of this thread.

Is the man nuts? He has obviously spent a lot of time on this - he is going to spend this whole summer on this.

If the man is "nuts," why are you and the rest of your progressive friends suddenly escalating your jihad against him. How many posts are you going to create here where you launch another misleading, dishonest attack on the man?

But again, he's using too dramatically different people and two hugely significant unifying social events. The amazing, innovative, forward thinking, adventure, ingenuity of the traditional American spirit versus the degenerative, collectivist, anti-establishment culture that was represented at Woodstock.


And on the subject of Woodstock. I went up there again last summer to see it again. I hadn't been up there in nearly 20 years.

The actual Woodstock sight, as I understand it, is fenced off. The original marker has been moved across the street. And up the road, on the hill, stands the enormous, tax payer subsidized, temple to Woodstock, the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts. I say tax payer funded, knowing that the million dollars of federal money that Hillary and Chuck Schumer secured for it was rescinded after John McCain drew attention to it- however it received $15M from the state of New York.

 

[foxpaws]

Again, misinterpretation on your part, but truth has never been something that held much interest for you.

While I don't think this was a particularly good segment (again 5 minutes, without context, towards the end of his show), the broader point and imagery is one that is quite interesting and often forgotten. The moon landing and Woodstock were just one month apart. People usually don't remember that. They remember them independent of each other.

It was all he had about that on that show - it was his 'intro' into what the summer has in store for the Beck faithful...

I remember only the moonwalk, Woodstock was out of my age and interest scope in '69. So I can be certain that Beck only remembers the moonwalk - he is a couple years younger than I am.

They sold tickets to the concert, but the people who attended didn't pay. A great many of the people who bought tickets couldn't reach the concert sight because it had been over run by the dirty free loading hippies.

And it wasn't a "grassroots movement." It was either a music festival crashed by hundreds of thousands of freeloaders OR it was a commercial music festival financed by investors who were hoping for a success similar to that of the Monterey Pop Fest- that was over run by freeloaders and lost a tremendous amount of money and cause huge amounts of property damage. They didn't make a profit on the event until years later due to the album and movie.

Actually Cal - over 200,000 people paid - out of 500,000 - not bad for an open air event in the 60s. And they have made tons of money, yes, in the long run, but just like most entertainment things - the payoff comes off in merchandising... Star Wars didn't make it on the movie alone, merchandising rights are where the really big money is.

However, most the people who attended certainly represented a grassroots movement - Peace, Music, Love, a huge theme running throughout the 3 days.

Kennedy wasn't a "really progressive liberal," the political myth constructed within minutes after his death defined him as such. Johnson absolutely was.

What Kennedy are you talking about - JFK? The man that wanted a big new government sponsored health care plan - Medicare, supported the Marshall Plan (and the part that would have let the USSR access to the monies in the plan), was instrumental in starting the Peace Corps, was a huge friend to the Unions, and it was his Civil Rights Act that was first presented to Congress. That Kennedy? He wasn't a progressive liberal? Gosh - so I guess Obama isn't either...

Beck clearly is a guy who thinks visually and he chose to compare two hugely significant UNIFYING cultural events that took place during the same summer. The example wasn't about the role of government, or how we should fund the space program, but about unifying social events.

But again, he's using too dramatically different people and two hugely significant unifying social events. The amazing, innovative, forward thinking, adventure, ingenuity of the traditional American spirit versus the degenerative, collectivist, anti-establishment culture that was represented at Woodstock.

As far as the 'social events'.... I would bet that almost everyone at Woodstock watched the moon landing the month before... almost everyone watched it. Therefore most everyone would be:

a)moonwalk

however there would be many that were​

b) moonwalk & woodstock or woodstock wanna be's

there would be almost no one who were​

c) woodstock only's...

You can't be forward thinking, innovative, adventurous and also be for free love, peace, and rolling around in the mud for a weekend to hear some of the most amazing musicians of the time? The space program was very collectivist - it was a big government program - really big. We wouldn't have ever gotten to the moon with out the collective power of the Federal government.

Why can't you be both? Free love and the space program? Why can't you be excited about two amazing events in American history?

We were both in the summer of '69 - both made America what it is today - and what it has been for the last 31 years. They are intertwined in American history.

It isn't just an either/or equation -

With that said, the space program is easily justified and defined as a military program, and as such, it's appropriate to be a public/private cooperation, but that's not the subject of this thread.

Oh... you like the space program so you find a way to justify it - very clever... Big government is fine, so long as it fits 'my criteria'...

If the man is "nuts," why are you and the rest of your progressive friends suddenly escalating your jihad against him. How many posts are you going to create here where you launch another misleading, dishonest attack on the man?

Why do I call out Beck so much - because he is nuts - and people listen to him and follow him like so many sheep. I don't want people to follow someone who actually thinks there are only two paths here, that sees the world in only black and white. That gets us into so much trouble when we do that.

And on the subject of Woodstock. I went up there again last summer to see it again. I hadn't been up there in nearly 20 years.

The actual Woodstock sight, as I understand it, is fenced off. The original marker has been moved across the street. And up the road, on the hill, stands the enormous, tax payer subsidized, temple to Woodstock, the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts. I say tax payer funded, knowing that the million dollars of federal money that Hillary and Chuck Schumer secured for it was rescinded after John McCain drew attention to it- however it received $15M from the state of New York.

You have been to Yeager's farm, and lots it sounds like - so have I - about 16 years ago - I visited it before I went to Woodstock II... sort of a pilgrimage I suppose.

And no temple to Woodstock was there when I went - but I have seen many of the temples to NASA .

 

[Calabrio]

Actually Cal - over 200,000 people paid - out of 500,000 - not bad for an open air event in the 60s.

No. They hoped to sell 200,000 tickets, in reality they fell short of that by about 15,000 tickets.
Despite this, over 300,000 additional people crashed the concert. They cut the fences and made it a "free concert" when they saw the crowd building.

What Kennedy are you talking about - JFK?

We can discuss the public myth of Kennedy and the political opportunist that Kennedy was at a later date. When Kennedy became a liberal martyr, his politics moved decided to the left in it's representation.

You can't be forward thinking, innovative, adventurous and also be for free love, peace, and rolling around in the mud for a weekend to hear some of the most amazing musicians of the time?

You can take from it whatever you want.

We were both in the summer of '69 - both made America what it is today - and what it has been for the last 31 years. They are intertwined in American history.

It isn't just an either/or equation -

Again, I didn't think it was a particularly good monologue.
Woodstock represented the END of a social era for many people, not the beginning of it, though it was never a positive one. However, from within that radical left movement resided the new left.

And that's the real focus of the contrast,
Tom Hayden vs. Neil Armstrong.
Bill Ayers or Buzz Aldrin.

Oh... you like the space program so you find a way to justify it - very clever... Big government is fine, so long as it fits 'my criteria'...

Is "national security" something you define as "my criteria."
In the 1960s, the space program was absolutely a national security issue. The ability to orbit the earth was just about bragging rights, it had to do with ICBM technology. The ability to militarize space is a national security concern. So, there is absolutely SOME justification for the federal government to be involved in the exploration.

How it's involved, the level of involvement, and the nature of it are something that are open to debate and consideration.

Why do I call out Beck so much...
I don't want people to follow someone who actually thinks there are only two paths here, that sees the world in only black and white

So, what you're really saying is that he's an increasingly effective implement to your political and social agenda.

It's interesting how a guy who is increasingly non-partisan, and really just embraces American history and traditional values is viewed as a threat by you.

You have been to Yeager's farm, and lots it sounds like - so have I - about 16 years ago - I visited it before I went to Woodstock II... sort of a pilgrimage I suppose.

I spent my summers on the lake there. I was able to take my canoe across the lake and go to the 20th anniversary. I didn't like hippies back then either.

And no temple to Woodstock was there when I went - but I have seen many of the temples to NASA .

You should appreciate them both, they both are temples to government in one way or another.

 

[foxpaws]

No. They hoped to sell 200,000 tickets, in reality they fell short of that by about 15,000 tickets.
Despite this, over 300,000 additional people crashed the concert. They cut the fences and made it a "free concert" when they saw the crowd building.

Sorry - I had read 15,000 over, not under - but, in that case they sold 185,000 tickets - about 2/5ths of the total number bought tickets - as I said for an outdoor concert in the 60s - not bad. But, they eventually made money, ROI - not a loss.

We can discuss the public myth of Kennedy and the political opportunist that Kennedy was at a later date. When Kennedy became a liberal martyr, his politics moved decided to the left in it's representation.

And when the right wants to embrace something or someone they are great at turning a blind eye to what the man really was about. Heck, we could just talk about Kennedy's union ties if you want to look at a 'model progressive liberal' Cal. He was what he was Cal - really pretty darn progressive, and an excellent liberal.

Again, I didn't think it was a particularly good monologue.
Woodstock represented the END of a social era for many people, not the beginning of it, though it was never a positive one. However, from within that radical left movement resided the new left.

And that's the real focus of the contrast,
Tom Hayden vs. Neil Armstrong.
Bill Ayers or Buzz Aldrin.

No, you (and maybe Beck) have the war protests mixed up with Woodstock... Make love not war wasn't the mantra of Ayers and Hayden. If he wanted to go with that (and those people) why didn't Beck use the DNC of '68 - Oh, I know why - because the man doesn't have a clue when it comes to history...

John Lennon vs George Wallace
Barbara Garson vs Richard Nixon
Jack Kerouac vs Barry Goldwater
Timothy Leary vs Jimmy Swaggart

Is "national security" something you define as "my criteria."
In the 1960s, the space program was absolutely a national security issue. The ability to orbit the earth was just about bragging rights, it had to do with ICBM technology. The ability to militarize space is a national security concern. So, there is absolutely SOME justification for the federal government to be involved in the exploration.

How it's involved, the level of involvement, and the nature of it are something that are open to debate and consideration.

To walk on the moon - that is all about bragging rights and nothing about national security Cal.

We are talking Apollo here - not Gemini, not Mercury - man on the moon - only about bragging rights. We had the satellite technology - we wanted the moon. We were better off with a space station than the moon missions. We were better off with the shuttle than with the moon missions. We, specifically Jack Kennedy, wanted the moon, and every "we did it, you can't" moment it has gotten us since 1969.

So, what you're really saying is that he's an increasingly effective implement to your political and social agenda.

It's interesting how a guy who is increasingly non-partisan, and really just embraces American history and traditional values is viewed as a threat by you.

Beck is an effective implement because he keeps getting wackier and wackier - I guess that is a way of looking at it. If you can marginalize what appears to be a 'voice' for one side, it is an effective way to marginalize the entire side.

And he doesn't embrace American history - he morphs it into some weird false choice dichotomy over and over again. Just like this whole Woodstock vs Moonwalk - why make this some weird false choice?

As I said they both are part of American history - they are both woven into who we are. The Moonwalk and Woodstock aren't good vs evil. Beck's false choices lead you to false conclusions. That is why I will, over and over again, make sure people know that he is wrong. That he doesn't understand history... Heck he calls 1969 the 'summer of love' - it was 1967 that was the summer of love - Beck can't even get that bit of history correct.

However, there he deviated from Ayn Rand's lecture on the same subject - do you think Beck is cruising the Rand site for things to talk about... Should have chosen better - Rand didn't do very well tying the two together either... Social commentary wasn't her strong suit. But Beck was able to work in Rand's mud wallowing - I wonder if he copied off of other's people's history tests in school?

Even in this whole wrong revisiting of the summer of '69 he mentioned he wanted to 'correct the founders' - only God and Beck must know what that means...

I spent my summers on the lake there. I was able to take my canoe across the lake and go to the 20th anniversary. I didn't like hippies back then either.

You should appreciate them both, they both are temples to government in one way or another.

Next time I'm between Albany and NYC, I'll stop to see it.

And I don't judge people by labels Cal. I like many hippies, just as I like many people who are conservative. They are all individuals, and should be judged accordingly. Taken in by the Beck decree I see - label them as dirty, filthy, sex crazed, hopped up, long haired hippies, so you can pigeonhole them, and hate them all. Nice Cal. See why I go after Beck... gak, even you Cal are becoming drone like...

Next time you are in Colorado Cal you need to see the Museum at Red Rocks - one of the greatest Rock n' Roll venues of all time - there is lots of cool stuff there... and yes, paid for by the government...

 

[Calabrio]

And when the right wants to embrace something or someone they are great at turning a blind eye to what the man really was about.

You can justify or excuse the lie or misrepresentation any way you'd like, but either way, it's still a misrepresentation.

No, you (and maybe Beck) have the war protests mixed up with Woodstock... Make love not war wasn't the mantra of Ayers and Hayden.

I stated very clearly that Woodstock more accurately reflected the END of an era for most people naively observing it. The new-left was already active within that community and they certainly used that movement for their ends. The radical anti-American sentiment and anti-establishment was very comfortable at that event. Marxist and fascist philosophy was very comfortable there.

But after Woodstock, the perceived innocence of the movement was lost because the public face become undeniably violent.

If he wanted to go with that (and those people) why didn't Beck use the DNC of '68 - .

And you appear to be having real trouble with numbers. The imagery being used contrasted TWO events that happened during the same summer, 1969.

To walk on the moon - that is all about bragging rights and nothing about national security Cal.

There were some typos in my response, but the moon landing wasn't simply about bragging rights.

But, there is another element there. A political one that shouldn't be denied.
JFK wanted an event to mobilize and unite the population, something with the moral equivalence and unifying ability as a war.

Beck is an effective implement

Again, writing error on my part, I meant to say obstacle and thinking of the word impede.

because he keeps getting wackier and wackier -

yet you continue to focus more and more attention and ratchet up your misleading, target attacks on him.

And he doesn't embrace American history - he morphs it into some weird false choice dichotomy over and over again. Just like this whole Woodstock vs Moonwalk - why make this some weird false choice?

There's no false choice there, despite your efforts to mis-characterize it. You seem to take issue with the fact that the man seems to have the ability to honestly frame subjects in a way that people find engaging, informative, and interesting.

The political movement you've aligned yourself with has spent generations re-writing history and lying about your motivations, it's very inconvenient when you find yourself betrayed by your own words, and you have a lose cannon in the media who speaks with fear of your reprisals.

As I said they both are part of American history - they are both woven into who we are. The Moonwalk and Woodstock aren't good vs evil.

You've over simplified and are misrepresenting the already simple point Beck was using.

Beck's false choices lead you to false conclusions

He's not presenting a false choice, nor does it lead to a false conclusion.
He appears to be introducing a the contrasting values and philosophies of the "new left" that emerged in the 60s and 70s with, what one could call, the "new right" as it was identified with people like Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan.

Heck he calls 1969 the 'summer of love' - it was 1967 that was the summer of love - Beck can't even get that bit of history correct.

golly-gosh-gee wiz... even you can't get it correct.
The "summer of love" doesn't necessarily refer to any ONE summer. It's a generic term used to describe summers from '67 through '69.

Here, you can even check wikipedia for that:
Summer of Love

The Summer of Love was a social phenomenon that occurred during summer of 1967 and closed with Woodstock in the summer of 1969, when as many as 100,000 people converged on the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood of San Francisco, creating a cultural and political rebellion.

However, there he deviated from Ayn Rand's lecture on the same subject - do you think Beck is cruising the Rand site for things to talk about...

It's entirely possible that he's influenced by it.

Should have chosen better - Rand didn't do very well tying the two together either...

Again, I don't think the subject will be as narrowly focused as you are presenting it in this thread. But rest assured, we'll find out. And so will the millions of TV viewers and radio listeners.

I wonder if he copied off of other's people's history tests in school?

Is that what you're left with?
You're reduced to petty personal attacks?
You really are on the run, aren't you.

Even in this whole wrong revisiting of the summer of '69 he mentioned he wanted to 'correct the founders' - only God and Beck must know what that means...

We all make mistakes when we're speaking, or writing.
I did in the last post. You constantly do it too.
Attacking him in that last post as a cheater, and now you've devolved into something no better than a spelling nazi on a message board

Next time I'm between Albany and NYC, I'll stop to see it.

It's really not worth going up there, unless you know a member of the Monticello Raceway.

And I don't judge people by labels Cal.

Right. You don't have any standards.
I think you've talked about that before.

 

[shagdrum]

And I don't judge people by labels Cal.

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

Yet you compare the fiction of Ayn Rand to the nonfiction of Hayek (betraying your lack of understanding of either in the process) when the similarities are passing at best.

Anytime anyone promotes a generally free market approach here you start misprepresenting them as anarcho-capitalists.

The truth is that you intentionally look to falsely label people by exagurating and distorting their ideas to the radical proportions. Weather you do it directly or through implication is irrelevant.

 

[foxpaws]

You can justify or excuse the lie or misrepresentation any way you'd like, but either way, it's still a misrepresentation.

And I have no idea of how you can think that JFK wasn't a progressive - what alternate history have you been reading?

I stated very clearly that Woodstock more accurately reflected the END of an era for most people naively observing it. The new-left was already active within that community and they certainly used that movement for their ends. The radical anti-American sentiment and anti-establishment was very comfortable at that event. Marxist and fascist philosophy was very comfortable there.

But after Woodstock, the perceived innocence of the movement was lost because the public face become undeniably violent.

And you appear to be having real trouble with numbers. The imagery being used contrasted TWO events that happened during the same summer, 1969.

And so for the sake of 'imagery' - Beck uses Woodstock? Once again - he is just choosing so he can make some 'summer of '69' comparison - or is it because he copied Rand - Once again the obvious comparison would be to the DNC in '68 - but why use that - it is only history he is jacking with...

There were some typos in my response, but the moon landing wasn't simply about bragging rights.

But, there is another element there. A political one that shouldn't be denied.
JFK wanted an event to mobilize and unite the population, something with the moral equivalence and unifying ability as a war.

And why and how did we mobilize the American population - with the ability to brag that we did it first - it was a race - the space race Cal - and it was all about who won, and who could say - we did it first!!!! It was all about bragging Cal.

yet you continue to focus more and more attention and ratchet up your misleading, target attacks on him.

There's no false choice there, despite your efforts to mis-characterize it. You seem to take issue with the fact that the man seems to have the ability to honestly frame subjects in a way that people find engaging, informative, and interesting.

The political movement you've aligned yourself with has spent generations re-writing history and lying about your motivations, it's very inconvenient when you find yourself betrayed by your own words, and you have a lose cannon in the media who speaks with fear of your reprisals.

Well, I don't think Beck is particularly fearful of my reprisals - it would be nice, but nope - isn't going to happen.

But here he has very much created a false choice - either woodstock or moonwalk - how false is that - because as I had shown before probably well over 90% of the people at woodstock were about the space program too... Almost the entire US was about the space program. Just because you went to woodstock doesn't mean you can't embrace the space program too - that is the false choice - show me how it isn't a false choice Cal - I can even draw up a logic circle or two if you want scientific, mathematical proof... It is a false choice, period.

You've over simplified and are misrepresenting the already simple point Beck was using.

Nope - Beck is the one that made this issue ridiculously simple - Moonwalk - good, Woodstock - bad. People who liked space program - good, people who were hippies - bad.

He's not presenting a false choice, nor does it lead to a false conclusion.
He appears to be introducing a the contrasting values and philosophies of the "new left" that emerged in the 60s and 70s with, what one could call, the "new right" as it was identified with people like Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan.

Nope - false conclusion - as I said before it runs into the whole only white, only black stupidity on his part. No gray -

golly-gosh-gee wiz... even you can't get it correct.
The "summer of love" doesn't necessarily refer to any ONE summer. It's a generic term used to describe summers from '67 through '69.

Here, you can even check wikipedia for that:
Summer of Love

Golly - gosh - gee - wiz - I would advise you not to use wiki, which can be updated overnight to 'prove' that Beck is right... Oddly if you look at the whole wiki article never again does it mention Woodstock - or anything beyond October, 1967 - Plus, if you take out the words "and closed with Woodstock in the summer of 1969," the first sentence makes sense - with the little 'edit' that some 'person' did the sentence doesn't make sense.

Here you go - a wide variety of older, and less editable source (plus, I did a college paper on the summer of love - and it is only about the summer of 1967 in SF)...

Famous PBS film - The Summer of Love
In the summer of 1967, thousands of young people from across the country flocked to San Francisco's Haight Ashbury district to join in the hippie experience, only to discover that what they had come for was already disappearing. By 1968 the celebration of free love, music, and an alternative lifestyle had descended into a maelstrom of drug abuse, broken dreams, and occasional violence.

THE SUMMER OF LOVE
1967: The stuff that myths are made of
Yet the mythology of that summer in 1967 has never disappeared. The San Francisco hippie, dancing in Golden Gate Park with long hair flowing, has become as much of an enduring American archetype as the gunfighters and cowboys who roamed the Wild West. More importantly, the rise of '60s counterculture has had a significant impact on our culture today. The Summer of Love resonates in strip mall yoga classes, pop music, visual art, fashion, attitudes toward drugs, the personal computer revolution, and the current mad dash toward the greening of America. While some of the counterculture's dreams came true, others, particularly the movement's idealistic politics, evaporated like the sweet-smelling pot smoke that saturated the air that summer.

Summer of Love and Woodstock
The Cold War Museum
During the spring, more disillusioned youth traveled to San Francisco upon hearing a declaration that the summer of 1967 would be the "Summer of Love." The Haight-Ashbury neighborhood of San Francisco quickly became the gathering place and home for many displaced youth who came to celebrate the counterculture event. The Summer of Love boasted music festivals, poetry readings, speeches, and even theater. For the most part, the Summer of Love proved successful in its ability to spread the counterculture message, but by the fall of 1967, increased incidents of crime and drug abuse by hippies gathered in Haight-Ashbury signaled a change in the movement.

Don't even try to say that The Summer of Love was anything other than 1967 in SF - there are thousands of references to that - and I would bet that Wiki will soon correct whatever some idiot put up there to validate Beck.

Again, I don't think the subject will be as narrowly focused as you are presenting it in this thread. But rest assured, we'll find out. And so will the millions of TV viewers and radio listeners.

Or, maybe he'll just conveniently forget about it - sort of like his 100 year plan for the US... I think he might - his tea party faithful are of an age to have attended or at least wish they would have attended Woodstock - I think he will find he is stepping on some toes...

Is that what you're left with?
You're reduced to petty personal attacks?
You really are on the run, aren't you.

Nope - I bet if Beck does run with this you will find he will need to draw more and more on Rand's lecture - he copies... this isn't original thought by any means. Or maybe he will own up and state where he got this idea.

We all make mistakes when we're speaking, or writing.
I did in the last post. You constantly do it too.
Attacking him in that last post as a cheater, and now you've devolved into something no better than a spelling nazi on a message board

No - that is what he said - that he was going to correct the founders - look at the transcript and watch/listen to the clip - he not only says it once he says it twice - I am not being a spelling nazi - I am quoting what he said - TWICE.

At 00:07:35

This summer, this program is going to dedicate itself to correcting the founders, the progressive era in the early turn of the century and the summer of '69.​

At 00:17:32

We're try to correct the perception of the founders, constitution and civil rights this summer and show how the textbooks have it wrong.​

It's really not worth going up there, unless you know a member of the Monticello Raceway.

I was there about 2 years ago for their grand opening - great place

Right. You don't have any standards.
I think you've talked about that before.

I don't have any standards - really Cal - how would you know?

 

[foxpaws]

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

Yet you compare the fiction of Ayn Rand to the nonfiction of Hayek (betraying your lack of understanding of either in the process) when the similarities are passing at best.

Anytime anyone promotes a generally free market approach here you start misprepresenting them as anarcho-capitalists.

The truth is that you intentionally look to falsely label people by exagurating and distorting their ideas to the radical proportions. Weather you do it directly or through implication is irrelevant.

And shag - you might want to read... Two Worlds at Once: Rand, Hayek, and the Ethics of the Micro- and Macro-cosmos by Steven Horwitz. An interesting look to their similarities - some that you might not understand - because you haven't read Rand, so how could you possibly understand her - or anything about her - when we discuss her...

I state that ideas/methods are anarcho capitalistic - not people shag.

Cal dislikes hippies - he uses a label and than dislikes them as a whole... I don't 'judge' any large group of people who are grouped together because of something as 'fuzzy' as 'hippie', I find it to be a pretty bad idea.