If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Smithsonian now says they didn't want the $38 mil to begin with. Donor shows them the finger   (news.independent.co.uk) divider line 50
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

4178 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2002 at 12:55 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2002-02-07 12:57:58 PM
Well, they wanted $38 million, but they didn't want the demands that went along with it. They made a good call.
 
2002-02-07 12:59:49 PM
What a crybaby biatch. Poor rich biatch... got rejected by the Smithsonian... she only wanted to do it "for the children."
 
2002-02-07 01:03:35 PM
Screw the Smithsonian. This donor is a farking hero. If I was going to give them 38 million for an exhibit, and all of a sudden wanted to go all politically-correct-socialist with it, I'd pull my money out as well. You guys make like she has no business withdrawing her own money.
 
2002-02-07 01:14:03 PM
Your dead on Pretnar!

She wanted to finance an exhibit celebrating the accomplishments of individuals and how they have bettered the world. This is just the continued war on the individual by the liberal socialists.
 
2002-02-07 01:14:46 PM
This donor deserves respect. The political correctness crap that is taking over the entire country needs to stop. Individuals make things happen, not groups of people... screw the smithsonian !
 
2002-02-07 01:15:48 PM
Pretnar

Why not change the name from the Smithsonian to Rich Peoples Museum?

=Democratically decide how to setup displays?
 
2002-02-07 01:17:37 PM
Pericles

Oh, tell that to the NYFD

money does not = wisdom
 
2002-02-07 01:34:05 PM
Most of the 38 million would have gone to that particular display. They were basically saying they didn't want the display.
 
2002-02-07 01:34:54 PM
I would guess that the donor was most likely black, due to the fact that she was "inspired" by King, Jordan and Winfrey. I don't know this for sure, but it's a guess based on what what in that article.

How long before she plays the race-card to get her way, just like every other allegedly victimized minority in the US?
 
2002-02-07 01:35:19 PM
Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan in the smithsonian? Why?

An overweight talk show host with serious relationship issues and Some guy who can't make up his mind to retire or not. There are much better people to point out individuals who shaped history. No one cares who the spoiled rich girl looks up to.
 
2002-02-07 01:36:38 PM
Celebrating the 'individual' isnt the point. This is the Smithsonian, not a pop-culture museum. While I definitely agree that MLK Jr. shaped the world as an individual, Oprah, Jordan and most of the rest of the people she probably picked haven't really done anything to shape the world historically.

It all boils down to her being holier than thou and thinking that just because she's a multi-millionare, we give a crap about her opinion. The individuals need to be lauded here for standing up to her and telling her that they don't need her trite exhibit.

"She wanted to finance an exhibit celebrating the accomplishments of individuals and how they have bettered the world. This is just the continued war on the individual by the liberal socialists." I'm mostly conservative and even I can tell you this statement is utterly retarded. The "liberal socialists" ARE the individuals and celebrate diversity. Conservative authoritarians are the ones who fight change and diversity... do a little reading.
 
2002-02-07 01:40:53 PM
Kudos to the Smithsonian
 
2002-02-07 01:42:52 PM
The Finger

 
2002-02-07 01:44:37 PM
Siggy - The "liberal socialists" ARE the individuals and celebrate diversity

Bwahahahahah! Big tent party my arse! You can't hold a position in the democratic national party if you're pro-life, pro-guns, pro responsibile taxiation, or if you disapprove of gays & lesbians. The Rebublican party lets you have diverse views AND hold a position in the party.
 
2002-02-07 01:53:30 PM

Courtesy Neal Boortz's website (www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm)



The left has a rich history of anti-individualist quotations. Just a few ....


"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." Nikita Khrushchev

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person." Vladimir Lenin

"There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual." Benito Mussolini

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual" Adolph Hitler (Remember present-day Conservatives would be called liberals in the 1940's)
 
2002-02-07 01:57:06 PM
Dr. vile, if these quotes are real, man, you made a great point. I thought the liberals in this country are all for individual rights, but they want to shut up anyone that doesn't agree with them...bastards!
 
lbo
2002-02-07 01:58:37 PM
Both parties are in the right. The smithsonian was right to reject some stupid hero-worshiping bullsh!t as an art exhibit, and the lady was right to withdraw her money when she wasn't satisfied with what was going to be done with it.

What's the controversy?
 
2002-02-07 02:02:41 PM
Testify Pericles!
 
2002-02-07 02:03:14 PM
Lbo, the problem is that when the Craponian accepts federal funds, they cannot pull political correctness crap like this. I think the feds should completely cut off all their dollars and see how they like that...then they can have the final word on everything that is going on.
 
2002-02-07 02:06:07 PM
Using Russian/Italian socialists doesn't really mean anything when looking at America. Totally different governmental structures really, especially when looking in a historical viewpoint. Really using the term liberal socialist should be thrown out it you really just want to talk about socialists period. Just in case you haven't checked, there are conservative socialists too.
 
2002-02-07 02:08:30 PM
When was the last time a major Republican party candidate was atheist/pro choice/anti gun?? Thats a terrible analogy, the two parties are comedically contrasting on a few issues, that doesn't mean anything about individuality.
 
2002-02-07 02:10:07 PM
Alright Siggy, here's a quote from Ted Kennedy from THIS PAST WEEK:

"At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good."

There ya go, "facing down individualism." Contemporary enough for you?
Christ.
 
2002-02-07 02:12:19 PM
And a couple more. . .

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." (President Bill Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A)
 
2002-02-07 02:12:22 PM
OK Siggy here you go. Here's american socialist Ted Kennedy:


He had a statement read into the Congressional Record on Monday. The statement was supposed to be praise for the New England Patriots football team for their incredible victory in the Super Bowl. Kennedy, however, found time while praising the Patriots to get in a little volley against the concept of the individual. This is from his statement:


"At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good."
 
lbo
2002-02-07 02:13:04 PM
But what do federal funds have to do with it? It was a 38 million dollar PRIVATE contribution. The donor was esentially renting out the museum for her 'hall of heroes' for the sum of 38 million dollars and the smith said no thanks.
 
2002-02-07 02:13:24 PM
Okay, we're on the same page here Dr. vile.
 
2002-02-07 02:14:27 PM
Fountainhead anyone?

Obviously, you can drag the party system into this, but why?
The differences between the two are relatively petty anyway. The donor can do whatever she wants to do with her money. And I'd have to agree that barring the exhibit solely on the grounds that individuals do not make a difference is absurd. But what does that have to do with my party affiliation?
 
2002-02-07 02:15:17 PM
For the record here people, it was not the Smithsonian that turned down her money, it was the donor that backed out.
 
2002-02-07 02:15:52 PM
Okay look I hate liberals vs conservatives arguments because in the American political system, they are basically the same. Its a pointless argument.

"Liberals want to make the world worse for freedom and individuality through increased statism. Conservatives just want to preserve the bad state it's already in at the present level of statism. Liberals want the government to be everybody's Nanny. Conservatives want it to be everybody's Policeman. Together, in the end, they get in the political bed of the beltway and make Big Brother. Or, as Dean Koontz put it, the "Brave New World Order." Great B flick: "They Saved Hitler's Brain and Glued it Onto the Missing Half of Stalin's."
Liberals, Conservatives. Democrats, Republicans. Tweedle-dweeb and Tweedle-dumb. Dumbo and Dumber. They have something in common: they initiate force against people to accomplish their own goals, while claiming to represent the will of the people.
What a choice!"

Copied from "The Libertarian Enterprise"
 
2002-02-07 02:17:06 PM
Siggy I'm not just talking candidates. I'm talking about positions within the Republican and Democratic committes. Look at the variance in the Republican party on homosexuality, abortion, taxes, etc. You don't find that in the Democratic party. Democrats say "our way or no way."
 
2002-02-07 02:18:05 PM
Ted Kennedy is total jackass. See we agree.
 
2002-02-07 02:20:35 PM
Fenester I'd say the differences between the two parties are quite a bit more different than you say.
 
2002-02-07 02:21:19 PM
You're not so bad after all Siggy. :)
 
2002-02-07 02:24:19 PM
dr. vile I have to utterly disagree with you. The parties are exactly the same. With the exception of the big ones (guns/abortion/religion/etc) the parties both just coddle up to whatever group will fund them and get them into office.

Example: Bill Gates was getting attacked by both parties for the windows monopoly. That was before Microsoft started aggressivly lobbying. Now both parties could care less and would most likely tell you that MS is an american institution.
 
2002-02-07 02:27:45 PM
The parties are vastly different based upon their platfroms. The politics of the 2 parties are similar.
 
2002-02-07 02:27:45 PM
Why is is that anytime someone starts talking politics, that people draw lines and start lobbing grenades towards the opposition. I'm not really part of that to be honest. I learn a lot from both sides but I don't consider myself part of either. I used to be for gun control, but I've started to change my mind about it a lot lately. I used to be more liberal, now I'm definitely more conservative. People do change their thought processes, it's just that this argumentative process is the only way to work out the kinks, if ya know what I mean.

Sorry if I sound like a dick sometimes, I think that this stuff brings out the worst in most people :)
 
2002-02-07 02:31:13 PM
I'd have to agree with Lbo on this one. It's a non-issue. The Smithsonian accepted the donation on the grounds that they would have ultimate decision-making authority on the use of the money; the woman's assumption was that she would have at least that single museum set up as per her wishes. Both parties began with different assumptions, and both ended their deal when they realized that the truth was otherwise. The Smithsonian DOES have a right to decide what exhibits are portrayed in its museums, and this woman has the right to decide where her money goes.
 
2002-02-07 02:45:47 PM
Good for the Smithsonian... that would have been a horrible farking exhibit... "lets showcase the worst people in society, so that we can teach 'the children' that they are heros"
 
2002-02-07 03:07:02 PM
Funny how the followup article doesn't mention some of the other people who would be honored in the exhibit: Steve Case, Martha Stewart, Sam Donaldson, etc. Sorry, but that's as commercial as it gets. Same goes for Michael Jordan. He's a great player, probably a helluva nice guy and a fantastic success story, but the guy is idolized practically everywhere. You can turn on your TV and watch a Washington Wizards game if you like. Do we really need another exhibit dedicated to him or to Martin Luther King? What would be special about the exhibit other than the donor is "inspired" by them? Yes, the donor has the right to withdraw the money. The Smithsonian has the right to maintain some standards and say "We don't care what you think should go in the exhibit. If you don't give us the final authority, then take your money and go elsewhere".
 
2002-02-07 03:48:51 PM
Wow. Integrity. Imagine that.
 
lbo
2002-02-07 03:49:11 PM
Yeah, seriously. You could offer me 100 million dollars to set up the goatse_cx guy in my living room, and I have every right to say, "hey, how about you put a towel over that gaping asshole". Then you could say, "uh, no, that defeats the point" and walk away with your 100 mil. Nothing to get all bent out of shape about.
 
2002-02-07 04:17:25 PM
Dr.Vile sorry, I'm at work and I must have dozed off there. Yes, you're right, the platforms do have great differences. But it does seem to be a fairly closed system. Perfectly legitimate candidates are refused the right to participate in electoral debates, limiting the introduction of important issues not included in the platforms of the two parties. But back to the issue at hand; Oprah?! How about Larry Flynt?
 
2002-02-07 04:25:11 PM
"Perfectly legitimate candidates are refused the right to participate in electoral debates. . . "

That is hardly the reason as to why we're so mired in a two-party system. But I agree that we are. And there don't seem to be any way out. And it sucks.
It's the public's fault. The masses are asses.
 
2002-02-07 04:42:28 PM
Yep
 
2002-02-07 04:50:22 PM
The masses have no idea what's going on. Most couldn't name the 2 parties.
 
2002-02-07 05:10:06 PM
Dr. Vile, the man who sees Hitler and Mussolini as liberals and compounds his stupidity by vomiting out a veritable army of straw men in an attempt to justify his position, speaks disdainfully of the masses?

Arrogance and infantilism do not mix. Ho ho ho.
 
2002-02-07 05:22:40 PM
Does anybody here know how to read?

1. The whole "individuals" vs. "movements and institutions" argument was made by Reynolds-- and Reynolds only.

2. Activists under the name "Commercial Alert" argued that the museum's secretary, Lawrence Small was "sacrificing the Smithsonian's independence and integrity" for letting Reynolds dictate the institution's exhibits.

3. Notice that this article does not mention Reynold's ties to the American Academy of Achievement where her hubby's chums can ask for a spot in the exhibit.
 
2002-02-07 06:05:10 PM
L33tzor- I wouldn't use the word distain but rather accurately.

Thank you also for illustrating my point about liberals. You are the liberal I'm talking about. The kind that turns to insults when confronted with a difference of opinion. I believe you're calling the kettle black when you use the word arrogance.
 
2002-02-08 12:05:52 AM
JON-A-THAN
JON-A-THAN
JON-A-THAN
JON-A-THAN
JON-A-THAN
 
2002-02-08 08:26:26 AM
When I first saw this story, I was amazed thatthe Smithsonian would fark away 38Mil.

Now, after seeing exactly whom this person wanted in the Hall of acheivers, I think the Smithosonian should have horsewhipped the biatch for even suggesting it.

Michael Jordan? Oprah Blimpy, er, I meant Whinfrey.

Nothing personal, but fark them. The latest pop idols don't count. What about Jonas Salk? G. W. Carver? Kal Ripkin? Yeah, he's just a baseball player, but he's a damn good person with a "can do" attitude that _is_ admirable.

You can tell that things are going down the shiatter when the best role models most people can come up with are sports figures and talk show hosts. A sad farking state of affairs.

Go Smithsonian!!
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report