You know what's entertaining? Watching a first-year law student try and argue with people who actually finished law school.

FTR: I don't see this as a big issue.

Or are close to finishing (the next year can't go fast enough...).

What I meant was quite clear. You just want to try to make the statement seem inaccurate. That's all. Realistically it takes more than a simple call to your Rep.

WHAT are you talking about? :rolleyes: What is REALLY entertaining is watching people scramble to make themselves seem right when they clearly misread in the first place.


Besides, who cares whether some see it as a big issue and others don't. People have the right to discuss how they feel about events that occur around the world. Deal with it.

Clear as the day is bicycle.

And hey, why rely on the experiential evidence of others (MysticCat) when you can make shit up to support your assertions? I must be the stupid one, how could I have made such a mistake? English degree, how you've failed me!

PROTIP: Your statement was unclear at best, inaccurate at worst, and your protracted defense of it is borderline crazy.

END OF ARGUMENT RRAAAAARRRRR

It didn't take more than a simple call for me, Joe Average Citizen.

And I didn't realize 'til now that you're in law school. If you think that what you wrote clearly conveyed what you say you meant . . . well, what can I say but that most 1Ls indeed have much to learn.

Rule of thumb: If you have to accuse everyone who comments on what you said of misreading what you said, you've lost the argument (and credibility). ;)

It's pretty clear the rest of the world is wrong, MC. I don't know how to explain this to you any more clearly than:

It's not like the other people cannot help not being wrong, let alone correctify their analogous patterns of meta-twittering.

Gosh yes, Batman. You're right again. Just call me Boy Blunder.

No, that doesn't mean I've lost the argument OR credibility (as if your opinion on my credibility is of any significance...perish the thought). Your logic is quite flawed with that statement.

I'm puzzled by this preoccupation with my status as a law student. Is it really that serious? lol

By the way, I am curious as to what you feel 1Ls need to learn and just how you came to that conclusion. However, I suppose this isn't the appropriate forum for that...we certainly don't want to hijack this thread.

You've lost the argument. Way to be a winner!

Thread's already been hijacked. The majority of people have stated that your statement implied that it was practically impossible to visit the White House.

No matter what you say you meant, you lost your argument.

FWIW I don't support Bush and don't think it's a big deal. It's common practice for the outgoing first family to purchase something for the White House.

Munchkin you beat me to the punch!

Oh, we highjack thread on GC all the time.

1) Some comments on the fact that you are a law student and you are arguing with people who have finished law school or that you are a law student whose writing is not as clear as you seem to think =/= "preoccupation" with your status as a law student. Really, you're not so important to warrant preoccupation. Just some good entertainment value.

2) I think that many 1Ls need to learn to write clearly and persuasively. I arrived at this conclusion after reading the writings of many 1Ls during my 20+ years practicing law.

3) If you really think that the logical explanation for any misunderstanding about one of your posts is that everybody has misinterpreted what you so clearly said, then your logic does not resemble our earth logic.

I feel like law students learn twice that they don't write as well as they think - once when they turn in their first law school practice motion/paper/etc., and again when they're a law clerk and turn in their first assigment to their manager/supervising partner/senior associate/etc. In any event, I've learned a couple of times where I can improve...haha.

I agree with DeepImpact. Eventhough the China is not paid for by the taxpayers it was still a senseless purchase. It makes no sense to purchase China for 1/2 a mil. when in two weeks the new first lady will be making another china purchase (because unless I'm misinformed each first lady gets to purchase china for the white house). I know it wont be in the first days that Mrs. Obama will make her china purchase, but it could be relatively soon and it will appear that our US leaders are just blowing money for no reason. In an economic crisis the Bush family is buying china? Really? Thats a great way to spark our economy. Is this china American made? (just wondering)

To hell with the historical legacy crap. Buying china is not the best way to enhance the historical legacy of the white house. I would have been more understanding if the Bushes purchased art of some kind. That is something that I would consider a legacy, but dinnerware? Nope. Its not like they dont already have china for dignitaries to eat from so what is the need for more? What dignitaries are they hosting over the next 14 days that they'll need china for?


DeepImpact2,
Maybe I misunderstood your post, but I thought that you meant that regular Americans couldn't visit the White House with the term visit meaning:
Go to the white house and have a meal using the expensive china.

In that sense Americans can barely visit the white house.
I do not consider something mine that I cannot use. If I jump through the necessary hoops I can go to the white house and view the china. That, in my opinion, does not make the china mine. That makes it someone elses china that I am going to see. Something cannot be considered "all of ours" if it can be used and only some of us can use it.

So, should the thousands of people who are spending what will be millions of dollars on transportation, hotels, clothing ,meals and tickets for the inauguration cancel because we are in a recession?

That would be the logical conclusion if we accept that unnecessary expenditures during a recession are bad.

Personally, I am happy for the boost to the Washington, D.C. economy. I also think that in the land of the free and the home of the brave if private citizens wish to donate funds to buy china that it is not newsworthy. Were public funds being used, yes, that would be wrong and newsworthy. I thought the same thing when it was reported that friends of the Clintons were buying expensive furnishings for them as they left office. What private citizens chose to do with their money is really not a concern of the public at large as long as no laws are broken.

As far as it being "our china" - it is ours in the sense that all of the exhibits at the Smithsonian are ours, that all of our national parks are ours, that the White House, whether you can go there or not, is ours. The china does not belong to an individual. It will be used at White House functions by the Obamas and future presidents when they entertain heads of state and foreign dignitaries in their role as the representatives of the American people. I do not know if all administrations buy china - I remember the Reagan china, but cannot recall if the Clintons or Bushes part I purchased any.

I'm not a lawyer or a law student, so hope my writing is clear enough for the GC crowd.;)

You don't get it - Bush = bad. Very easy calculus on this one.

A different article in the Atlanta paper mentioned that the china had actually been ordered a few years ago but because of problems, was only just now being shipped.

I don't know/care if the other Presidents ordered china given how many times they are expected to feed people.

Keep in mind that even Barbara Walters has admitted in the past taking WH objects so maybe they don't have enough full sets.;)

I wouldn't be completely surprised to learn that people swipe china or flatware from a White House dinner.

Foreign dignitaries, American icons, guests, etc. can be trashy and classless, too.

The thousands of people going to the inauguration should not cancel. All of their purchases together will be millions. It would be different if each person were spending 1/2 a mil. Then Hell Yes they should cancel.

In the land of the sometimes free and brave any and almost everything is newsworthy. Beyonce took a fall and CNN covered it so, there aren't many limits on what is newsworhty.

What private citizens do is their choice, but when the choice is also made by the head family of our country (the one that sets an expample for the families of America) and the choice effects the American people I think it is more than newsworthy. I think that in a recession certain purchases are bad. It is a bad idea if your income has been drastically slashed for you to allow a family memeber to buy you a new couch when you already have several and don't need one. When you are appealing to others to give you a loan to help cover your bills what do you expect them to say about that new furniture? Also, what do you expect your kids to learn from that? I'll be damned if a president is going to tell me that we need to spend 700 Billion on a bailout when there's enough money out there to spend .5mil on china. Ask the china buyers to pay for a bail-out not the American people. And as another note, yes Mrs. Clinton did buy new china and the Clintons left office with a surplus. There was extra money to be spent as far as Im concerned.

The Smithsonian and national parks can be used by all people equally. It'd be different if some people could take the exhibits in the Smith home while most of us couldnt. We all have equal access and use of the things you mentioned. I do not consider the white house mine either. I cannot use it as such it is not mine. The things that belong to the American people can be used by the american people.

So how many place settings do you get for a half a million bucks? I could not find where they mentioned if it was 200 or 1000 or what.

Hmm, I wonder if we'll see any reports on the expense of the Congressional dining services facilities?

320 sets:eek:

Agreed!

Well said!!!

I would also like to answer a question you asked. The question was what dignitaires are they hosting in the next 14 days that they will need china for. My answer is probably the very people who are occupying the Blair House and preventing the Obama's from moving in a little bit early. :p(Before anyone argues that no other president has done it, several media sources have reported that other presidents HAVE moved into the Blair House early.)

No, I actually have not. Based on the mob mentality that exists around here with certain posters, whether those particular posters understood what I meant or not, very few would admit to it. So I'm not concerned with your assessment of whether or not I lost my argument because I know that the opinions of several people on this thread are simply biased.

Who are these biased people? Most of us have already stated that, while we aren't Bush supporters, we don't have a problem with the china purchase, and we wouldn't have a problem with any President buying the china.

We have a disagreement about whether this is a big deal - it's a debate. I think some good points have been brought up on each side. There's not a "mob mentality" at play here - you should just realize that the majority of people who have posted in the thread disagree with you. That's not a "mob;" again, it's a debate.

I'm amused that you actually wrote this. There are practicing attorneys who can barely write. At least these 1Ls you speak of have an excuse (IF their writing is really unclear and unpersuasive...we only have YOUR asessment of that... which is definitely not a final authority).

I will add that I'm not sure what being an attorney has to do with anything. I view this thread as a discussion. We are not in court. Again, it's not that serious.

So, you're an idiot. You should stop now. What "mob mentality?" I, for one, am not afraid to speak my mind. When I disagree (or agree) with something, I'll speak it. And the same goes for most people here.

The fact is, you incorrectly worded your statement. What you wrote, read as something different than what you intended. Several people here have told you that. Don't try and say they were wrong. Admit that you worded it wrong and be done with it.

Whoa! Can we take a step back from this one. I think calling her an idiot is going a step too far.

It is safe to say that her statement was worded in a way that some misunderstood it. What you interpreted visit to mean and I interpreted it to mean are two different things so we can just leave it at the fact that she was misunderstood. If she wrote something that other people read as something different it does not make her wrong. It does make them wrong. I don't see the need for someone to admit something that is not true. She did word it correctly. Admit that you read it wrong and be done with it.

There is a distinct mob mentality in that there are many people who in this thread have tried to "discredit" DeepImpact2 as a mob would (by saying all of you are right and she is wrong and that she needs to bow down to that "fact"). Just because you speak your mind does not mean that you're not a member of this "mob". Each person in the mob is in some way speaking their mind. It just happens that all members are of the same mind. I think you're confusing mob mentality with Bandwagon mentality.

Just because you think it doesn't mean it needs to be said.

Biased against what? Can't be that we're all conservative because half the people that disagree with you are flaming liberals.

Maybe we're biased against you. Could be true. How many times have you been called stupid in this thread alone?

Just because people call you out on flying off that handle and making inflammatory comments doesn't mean we're biased. I just think you're full of shit.:)

An idiot is a senseless person. I stand by my statement.

ETA: If you write something and most of the people interpret it as something completely different than what you meant it----that means you worded it wrong. Point blank. You can go back and forth all you want, but the fact is several people have interpreted deepimpact's comment the same way.

The term visit is the only thing that people misunderstood. Thus, what you and others interpreted was not completely different. It was only slightly different.
Visit could mean:
1. To go to the white house and have a meal on the expensive china that the Bush family bought. [Which DeepImpact2 meant]
or
2. To go to the white house and take a tour.

What DeepImpact2 meant is what she said!

How is DeepImpact2 a senseless person? What she said made sense and she seems to have sense. It appears to me that you are being senseless.

The fact also is that several people have interpreted DeepImpact's comment incorrectly. The wording would be wrong if the words she used did not mean what she was trying to say. She meant what she said and said what she meant.

No, that is what YOU assumed she (is deepimpact a she?) meant.

Her statement about "barely" being about to visit the White House, had absolutely nothing to do with the china (the china question was in regards to SWTXBelle's comment). She was talking about the "hoops" and "hurdles" it takes to visit the White House--which people have already told her aren't that difficult to get through.


ETA: So going by your logic, since you interpreted deepimpact's statement a different way (than what she meant)--you are wrong.

That's not actually true.

Since, in reply to my inference about her comment DeepImapct2 said "Well said" I do not believe that I got her wrong. I may have. DeepImpact2 will have to clear this up.

So, DeepImapct2 did you mean what I thought you meant by your comment?

^^The statement about being able to visit the white house had absolutely everything to do with the china. She was disputing the belief that the china belonged to all of us because not all of us can visit the white house to use the china.

So, going by my logic I may be wrong. It will just take the clarification of DeepImpact2 to tell.

What is not actually true?

For just a minute, I was almost stupid enough to come out of my (legally) medicated coma to comment about totally uninformed people posting about things they know nothing about. But since certain posters haven't gotten the point already, I'm going back to bed.

The china was made by American companies Lenox and Pickard, for both formal and less formal occasions, all paid by private funds. Don't like it? Don't donate.

I'm going to ignore how "hard" it is to get in to see the White House. That's a thread of its own. nihgt.

What does a federal budget surplus have to do with the price of china in Washington, given that the china Mrs. Clinton bought was paid for with private foundation dollars, not federal funds? She didn't spend any "extra money" from any surplus.

Clear and well-said. (And I don't think Barbara Bush bought any china. Could be wrong though.)

Oh brother don't I know it. LOL

Yeah, why should you trust anything I say? Maybe I only pretend to be a lawyer. ;)

Exactly. Of course it's not that serious! Do you really not understand that the reason some of us have been having fun at your expense (I'll admit it) is because of the way you have responded to something that's "not that serious"?

The "it's-not-that-serious" response to the White House Tour link would have been something along the lines of "Sure I know it's possible to visit the White House. Sorry if anyone thought I was suggesting otherwise. What I meant was . . . ." And that would have been the end of it.

But instead, you chose to (pardon the expression) make a federal case out of it, dismissing even the possibility that you might have been less than clear, insisting that biased people were misinterpreting you and then scrambling to justify themselves. That kind of over-defensive reaction is like yelling "Play Ball!"

It's simple. We wouldn't have taken it seriously if you hadn't.

I am well aware of that! Just like the new China was not paid for by the American people.
The point is about the way the spending appears and the impression it gives. The point is that even though it is not TP dollars, in a recession this type of spending is senseless and it makes it seem like the impression the president is giving the American people about this being hard economic times that call for drastic (700 billion dollar) measures is a lie since his wife is buying 1/2 a million dollar china.
The point in saying that there was a surplus when the Clintons left is that the economy and American people were not suffering. There was "extra money" so a purchase like this would not be considered offensive. This situation to me is about setting an example.

If your next door neighbor just got a new expensive couch (to add to the many he already has and you know that the person who is moving in after he leaves in 2 weeks is going to buy another) after he turned to you and asked you to sacrifice to help his friend pay for a huge mistake she made would you not question why he let someone buy him a Couch when he knew his friend needed help? Personally, he'd have to sell the Couch or make some type of personal sacrifice before he could step to me and ask for my dollars. I would question his discretion.

So, I disagree with the purchase and think it was a very bad idea and I also think it came at a bad time. It wasn't my money and there isn't anything that I can do about it (not that I would if I could). I also don't buy the "Its all American's china" idea. Its just my opinion on the matter.

Why was it a "poor choice"? It wasn't paid for with your taxpayer money so what's the big deal?

I think you can point to several more instances of spending that could be far more detrimental to our economy than the act of buying some dinnerware. Think: "Bailout"

What the hell does private money used from a private foundation have to do with what Bush has said about the economy? Our economy is in the dumps. We are in fairly desperate times that have called for desperate measures. None of that means that someone can't spend their OWN PRIVATE money on a gift. Paris Hilton bought a 320,000$ pink Bentley with her own private money.....is she a threat to our national well being? No.

Personally, I'm a lot more pissed off that shitty companies with shitty business models have gotten billions of dollars of OUR own money through bailouts. Those were bad ideas.......certainly in a bad time....

....but that's just me.