katrina
Well-known member
R2.. You just proved how ignorant you are... Yessssssssssss...
Enough said........
Enough said........
What Happened to Dis?????
- Thread starter Happy go lucky
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
I just want to make one point. The Smithsonian was actually the result of guy who never stepped foot on American soil. He must have thought quite a bit about the concept of America because when he died he left all his money to the American gvernment to start the museum to promote learning and history.
The Smithsonian was built and maintained with his huge donation/trust fund.
The Smithsonian is not really something government is resposible for.
Question
Who is your favorite artist?
Mine are Will James and Charlie Russel.
The Smithsonian was built and maintained with his huge donation/trust fund.
The Smithsonian is not really something government is resposible for.
Question
Who is your favorite artist?
Mine are Will James and Charlie Russel.
R2 It sounds like they have expanded it beyond the means of the original trust fund foundation.
http://www.si.edu/about/history.htm
In 1826, James Smithson, a British scientist, drew up his last will and testament, naming his nephew as beneficiary. Smithson stipulated that, should the nephew die without heirs (as he would in 1835), the estate should go "to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men."
The motives behind Smithson's bequest remain mysterious. He never traveled to the United States and seems to have had no correspondence with anyone here. Some have suggested that his bequest was motivated in part by revenge against the rigidities of British society, which had denied Smithson, who was illegitimate, the right to use his father's name. Others have suggested it reflected his interest in the Enlightenment ideals of democracy and universal education.
The Birth of an Institution
Smithson died in 1829, and six years later, President Andrew Jackson announced the bequest to Congress. On July 1, 1836, Congress accepted the legacy bequeathed to the nation and pledged the faith of the United States to the charitable trust. In September 1838, Smithson's legacy, which amounted to more than 100,000 gold sovereigns, was delivered to the mint at Philadelphia. Recoined in U.S. currency, the gift amounted to more than $500,000.
After eight years of sometimes heated debate, an Act of Congress signed by President James K. Polk on Aug. 10, 1846, established the Smithsonian Institution as a trust to be administered by a Board of Regents and a Secretary of the Smithsonian.
http://www.si.edu/about/history.htm
In 1826, James Smithson, a British scientist, drew up his last will and testament, naming his nephew as beneficiary. Smithson stipulated that, should the nephew die without heirs (as he would in 1835), the estate should go "to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men."
The motives behind Smithson's bequest remain mysterious. He never traveled to the United States and seems to have had no correspondence with anyone here. Some have suggested that his bequest was motivated in part by revenge against the rigidities of British society, which had denied Smithson, who was illegitimate, the right to use his father's name. Others have suggested it reflected his interest in the Enlightenment ideals of democracy and universal education.
The Birth of an Institution
Smithson died in 1829, and six years later, President Andrew Jackson announced the bequest to Congress. On July 1, 1836, Congress accepted the legacy bequeathed to the nation and pledged the faith of the United States to the charitable trust. In September 1838, Smithson's legacy, which amounted to more than 100,000 gold sovereigns, was delivered to the mint at Philadelphia. Recoined in U.S. currency, the gift amounted to more than $500,000.
After eight years of sometimes heated debate, an Act of Congress signed by President James K. Polk on Aug. 10, 1846, established the Smithsonian Institution as a trust to be administered by a Board of Regents and a Secretary of the Smithsonian.
Faster horses
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 30,240
- Reaction score
- 1,423
Hummmm. Tastes certainly vary, don't they.
That could give me nightmares, but I do like daisys.
That could give me nightmares, but I do like daisys.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I agree. You just can't get any better than Vermeer. It took you long enough, but we're finally on the same page. :wink:reader (the Second) said:
Red Robin
Well-known member
Ha. :lol:X said:
kolanuraven
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 10,917
- Reaction score
- 11
"X".....yer on your game today!!!!
Steve
Well-known member
Yep.........but I'm not a blind sheep follower.......
I tend to lead in another direction..
Steve
Well-known member
Not really.....her track was limited by her hatred of President bush...
I do somewhat wonder about the demise of HMW, as a "moderate" she made a good liberal.... :lol: But that's what I get for getting to busy to post on a regular basis.....
Kolanuraven:....my point was not that art is "all" crap....but the costly "crap" art detracts from all the good efforts put in by many.....not only in limited funds wasted, but in the endowments tarnished reputation.....
but more so that most art is reserved for the wealthy, ...your shareing your art is commendable, but for most this is not a ability to even view some great masters....(BTW:,.....How did you like the Painting?)
.....yet by supporting hunks of metal, and poles stuck togeather the endowment limits funding to other exhibits,..concerts, and senior pottery classes.....
a chunk of iron cost New Jersey $50,000, a pottery class $50....so in effect 1000 seniors were left wondering the street looking for something to do while an "Artist" sipped wine and laughed his arrogent ass off.....
and the art you and R2 use as examples is often looked down upon by most culture boards that distribute money and grants....yet these same boards will defend spending thousands in legal fees to defend a controversial exhibit....that is the "crap" art that offends me....
Steve
Well-known member
Maybe you could show me where my definition was "way way to Narrow"?
....I am not debating weather it is art or not.....I just said art was a sport of the wealthy funded by the poor......and that crap art was crap......I did not attempt to "narrow" my defination........seems as only you two are boxed in by an Art definition.....
moved to Art crap thread so Dis won't think she is getting missed to much... :roll: :lol:
So im starting to think that the basic reason Kolanu and R2 consider themselves Liberal is..
#1 They dont really like GB jr.
This doesnt really make you a liberal
#2 Funding Art
In Canada this doesnt make you a liberal although im pretty sure a Conservative government would not fund it as much as a liberal government would.
#3 Funding Science
I dont know much about it except for in Canada there is a certain amount of junk science. Example the Suzuki Foundation gets lots of funding from taxpayers. The Suzuki foundation turns around and bites the hand that feeds it by telling us that we cant cut any trees down, have to close commercial fishing, have to live up to Kyoto agreements or our the world will end, according to the leader David Suzuki if an Indian kills a moose it is a wonderful , natural thing. But if I do it im rapeing, destroying, exploiting wildlife, etc. etc.
#4 Abortion
Well im not exactly against abortion so does that make me a liberal?
#5 Education
Im extremely pro education. The latest thing that Ralph<Alberta Conservative leader>did up here was that all children now get a $500 educational bank account<ERRSP>. This is a free $500 towards the childs post secondary education. Now if parents want to ad to this account the AB government will match them $ for $. This is all tax free and a good idea if you ashk me.
Im a conservative but im all for government backing educational TV like PBS. Does this mean im Liberal? I dont think so.
#1 They dont really like GB jr.
This doesnt really make you a liberal
#2 Funding Art
In Canada this doesnt make you a liberal although im pretty sure a Conservative government would not fund it as much as a liberal government would.
#3 Funding Science
I dont know much about it except for in Canada there is a certain amount of junk science. Example the Suzuki Foundation gets lots of funding from taxpayers. The Suzuki foundation turns around and bites the hand that feeds it by telling us that we cant cut any trees down, have to close commercial fishing, have to live up to Kyoto agreements or our the world will end, according to the leader David Suzuki if an Indian kills a moose it is a wonderful , natural thing. But if I do it im rapeing, destroying, exploiting wildlife, etc. etc.
#4 Abortion
Well im not exactly against abortion so does that make me a liberal?
#5 Education
Im extremely pro education. The latest thing that Ralph<Alberta Conservative leader>did up here was that all children now get a $500 educational bank account<ERRSP>. This is a free $500 towards the childs post secondary education. Now if parents want to ad to this account the AB government will match them $ for $. This is all tax free and a good idea if you ashk me.
Im a conservative but im all for government backing educational TV like PBS. Does this mean im Liberal? I dont think so.
kolanuraven
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 10,917
- Reaction score
- 11
Roper.....Bush claims himself to be Conservative....with a big " C"...... I dislike the man sooooooo much....I'll be ANYTHING that is the greatest distance away from that little man!!
So right now it's Liberal!!
So right now it's Liberal!!
Soapweed
Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
This sounds like a pre-meditated hate crime in the making. :wink:
kolanuraven
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 10,917
- Reaction score
- 11
Maybe I should have said Bush, Inc.
Powell might have been the only one I had respect for....but they--Bush, Inc, even threw him under the bus.
Powell might have been the only one I had respect for....but they--Bush, Inc, even threw him under the bus.
BBJ
Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Well then I must say this....You must REALLY dislike President Bush to go to the extreme of being a LIBERAL! :shock: Or at least for now? :lol2: Are you one of those people?
You say "ANYTHING that is the greatest distance away from that little man" (typical demo-crat personal attack, I'm proud of you :wink: ), so he must truely be a Conservative since you feel a liberal is the furthest most appropriate thing for now. :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
kolanuraven said:
Yeah I can see your point. I know I really dont want to associate myself with so called cowboy conservatives who want to sell their horses to the french to abuse and eat.
What kind of a cowboy hates his horse? The kind that doesnt know anything about horses.
Soapweed
Well-known member
RoperAB said:
You know, RoperAB, at one time I had respect for you. As of the moment, it's pret' near all gone. The more you talk, the more you prove that you are only a wanna-be cowboy, and not the real thing. I am highly disappointed.
Liberty Belle
Well-known member
I'm pretty disappointed too. Tell us Roper, how does selling a horse to slaughter plant because he is old, crippled or just plain worthless, any worse than selling a cow or a sheep to the slaughter plant?
That's abuse?
Would you rather see that same horse die of starvation because the owner can't afford to feed him and can't find anyone who will buy him? That constitutes abuse, and we're going to see a lot of it if this bill is made into law.
Maybe you'd like to take in a few of these jug heads, cripples and old-timers and feed them yourself?
Our ranch horses are dear to us and there is no way we are going to allow anyone to hurt them, anymore than we would allow our cows or sheep to be hurt. Killing them humanely at a packing plant is not abuse. Turning horses loose on federal lands to starve to death because you can't afford to keep them and can't afford to have the vet put them down IS abuse.
That's abuse?
Would you rather see that same horse die of starvation because the owner can't afford to feed him and can't find anyone who will buy him? That constitutes abuse, and we're going to see a lot of it if this bill is made into law.
Maybe you'd like to take in a few of these jug heads, cripples and old-timers and feed them yourself?
Our ranch horses are dear to us and there is no way we are going to allow anyone to hurt them, anymore than we would allow our cows or sheep to be hurt. Killing them humanely at a packing plant is not abuse. Turning horses loose on federal lands to starve to death because you can't afford to keep them and can't afford to have the vet put them down IS abuse.
