On a museum that will commemorate the sixties, including Woodstock, when the gov't throws away around $70 Billion a year in Iraq?
To me, a museum in New York state is worth a lot more than our ongoing, unending military conflict in Iraq. Even if it is a "hippie" museum. Woodstock was an important event, just like Plymouth Rock is important. It's a part of our history and we should remember it, regardless if you disagree with the politics of those that were there. The museum could be paid for by cutting a fraction of one contract in Iraq.
And in any case, private donations are providing the majority of funds for that museum anyway.
2007-10-30 13:08:00 · 8 answers · asked by redguard572001 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm not unpatriotic. I served in the Army for 6 years. I got out this past year because I was tired of constant deployments. I wanted to start a family and I could never do that being gone 1 year out of every 3.
2007-10-30 13:17:16 · update #1
Because it was a era of drugs, thats something to look back at and look down upon, not make a museum about.
2007-10-30 13:11:47 · answer #1 · answered by godgunsandgl0ry 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The government should NOT be funding this museum. It is a complete waste of money. Let private donations fund this museum and keep government money out of it.
The problem with our government is every Senator wants a million or two million dollars for his or her pet projects. This has to stop. We complain about not having a balanced budget and then want to waste a million dollars on something that will benefit very few people. I can think of a hundred ways the government could better spend this million dollars than giving it to a museum.
2007-10-30 20:19:20 · answer #2 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot of people believe that the project in Woodstock will create jobs and stimulate the economy in that part of New York State. Clinton is a US Senator for NY. It's her job to be an advocate for her constituents. People react to the fact that it's called a Woodstock museum (it's part of a larger development) and that it's being championed by Clinton. They don't bother to look into the facts. If the a republican were asking for same amount of money for a similar project, without the names Woodstock or Clinton involved, no one would think twice about it.
2007-10-30 20:22:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mr. McCain's opposition to the Woodstock concert museum shows just how out of touch he is. Woodstock is and remains about the music and the coming together of people. According to McCain, its more important to bomb Iran than to support cultural icons of peace and music.
2007-10-30 20:14:55 · answer #4 · answered by PRGfUSMC 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government shouldn't be funding museums in Woodstock. It's not the job of the federal government.
It IS our government's job to fund our military, however.
It's pretty simple really....
2007-10-30 20:13:07 · answer #5 · answered by charbatch 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ah yes. The sixties. There's a decade that is SO under-representated in the arts and rock and roll museums.
2007-10-30 20:15:49 · answer #6 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simple -- it's in New York State. If it was a museum in Arizona he would be all for it.
2007-10-30 23:18:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are unpatriotic.
You do not support troops.
2007-10-30 20:11:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋