NBVegita Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...seum/#more-2588 I can only laugh at the fact that hillary and schumer are trying this at all. discuss.
ThunderJam Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 Oh god lol. It's one thing to a museum about it, it's another to ask for federal funding and to have the museum in washington dc as if it's of national importance. *on second thought, I'm not sure if it actually said in DC...
»Ducky Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 Museums in general are already funded by your tax dollars in some way, shape or form; how is this different?You don't like this one and I don't like art ones.
NBVegita Posted October 19, 2007 Author Report Posted October 19, 2007 What I don't like about it is that Clinton is pushing this so hard because the gentleman who would own/run the museum is one of her biggest donators.
Bak Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 one million dollars?!? holy crapper... hey instead of invading iraq we could have built > 400,000 hippie museums! http://costofwar.com, hypocrite
The Real Picard Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 Give me the money and you can use my home as the Hippie Museum, I've got all my bongs, bell bottom pants with patches sewn on, lava lamps, etc.
»Ducky Posted October 19, 2007 Report Posted October 19, 2007 Are you kidding me? Of course she'd push it because it fits her agenda. This is what politicians do. Why would anyone give millions of dollars to a candidate "just because".They all want some type of kickback or attempt at a benefit in the future.
»Ducky Posted October 20, 2007 Report Posted October 20, 2007 Oh well, that settles my position easily. It's at the place it happened and is being made for music. Beats another photo gallery.
JDS Posted October 20, 2007 Report Posted October 20, 2007 um, what would you rather see, a few more bombs for 1million dollars, or a new museum?
NBVegita Posted October 22, 2007 Author Report Posted October 22, 2007 More bombs. At least those are useful.
ThunderJam Posted October 22, 2007 Report Posted October 22, 2007 It simply comes down to where the funding comes from. I don't think anyone objects to having the museum, but why the !@#$%^&* come out of federal money that they get from our taxes? The majority of the country could probably care less if they made a woodstock museum in new york, so if she wants to make one, find some private funding.
ra$ta420 Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 taxes can pay to keep people alive in prison,but we cant have a museum?
ThunderJam Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 taxes can pay to keep people alive in prison,but we cant have a museum?Well... I'm a death sentence supporter Nah but seriously i just feel like. Out all the people in our country, a woodstock museum is going to appeal to one age group of people: 30-45 year olds right now. Of those people, how many actually think Woodstock needs to be commemorated? Because im sure theres plenty who would rather it be forgotten. And out of those who think its reasonable to commemorate it, how many will actually care enough to want to visit? I just feel it's the whole country's tax money, to do something that the _majority_ of people, if they had the chance to vote on it, probably wouldn't vote for.
JDS Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 are you insaine? woodstock museum would appeal to people of ALL ages.. who wouldn't want too see a museum with the main feature being a tribute to jimmy hendrix. and no one, no one would rather forget woodstock
ThunderJam Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) are you insaine? woodstock museum would appeal to people of ALL ages.. who wouldn't want too see a museum with the main feature being a tribute to jimmy hendrix. and no one, no one would rather forget woodstockNo one? I doubt it... People who were too old at the time probably think it's foolish just like they probably didn't like their kids being into it at the time it happened. People too young right now probably can't fully appreciate it (i admit i probably im biased by this some). And i know at least 5 people I've talked to who did experience it, consider it foolish in retrospect and think of it as a drugfest. Edited October 23, 2007 by ThunderJam
NBVegita Posted October 23, 2007 Author Report Posted October 23, 2007 Both of my parents were at woodstock. Basically there were a lot of drugs, a lot of sex, my mom can't even tell you half of the bands that played because she can't remember. Not something we really need a museum for.
JDS Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 im glad your have such a bleak outlook on life NB vegita .. 'oh lets get bombs yea.. those are usefull.. oh lets not get a museum.. yea what would we want one of those for??? we arnt suposed to remember the past thats right .. im just a dumb american'
ra$ta420 Posted October 24, 2007 Report Posted October 24, 2007 oh need to add 1millon$ isnt !@#$%^&*
NBVegita Posted October 24, 2007 Author Report Posted October 24, 2007 There is a huge difference to a museum about something important in history, vs a museum for one of the biggest legal drug orgies in the history of america.
JDS Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 Music is the most important thing to the human race. Its a way to express ourselves in a way thats so special and unique that the only word for it is 'incredible' how can you say music is not important in history, some of the greatest musicians were at woodstock, and some of the greatest solo's and songs were played at that time, people can only try to be as good as some of the musicians, and your saying that woodstock isnt important to our history? my only !@#$%^&*umption to you is .. you are one idiot son, there is very little chance that there would be ANYTHING related to 'drugs' at the museum.. but instead it would be a great musical tribute. and if you dont want that.. you have issues
NBVegita Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Posted October 25, 2007 I dare you to mention one musical marvel that occured at woodstock, minus such a huge compelation of bands playing. If you're going to make a museum about music, even of that era, do that, but woodstock was not singularly important to the music industry, and there are many other more noteworthy events that are far more deserving of a museum than woodstock. I mean !@#$%^&* woodstock was like anything other concert, it was started to simply make money. And if you think the list of musicians who played was impressive, which overall I do not think they as a whole had a terribly impressive lineup, in fact I bet you couldn't even name three bands, without using google, that played woodstock, you should see the list of bands who refused/cancelled woodstock.
JDS Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 i am going to cease to reply to this thread for this main reason. What we are argueing here is not 'should there be a new museum' because the answer to that is obviously YES. what we are arguing is our taste of music, if you dont like that era thats fine.. but many people do. And i cannot list all the band names that were at woodstock.. but with the help of a museum i would be able to
NBVegita Posted October 25, 2007 Author Report Posted October 25, 2007 The whole point is not if we need another museum, it's if we need a woodstock museum, which I don't believe we do. It has nothing to do with liking the music of the time, !@#$%^&* should there be a museum dedicated to WEMF? That is a yearly "woodstock" for the techno world, but no matter one concert, or even a series of concert, which in reality did nothing to advance the music world should not have its own museum.
Recommended Posts