Recession? What recession? The Bushes Buy Fine China for almost 1/2 a mil.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Agreed - again, maybe bad public relations move, but other than that, no issue with me.

For those who have a problem with it, ask yourself this: do you think that the Obamas should skimp on furnishing the White House when they move in? Or, should they be able to decorate as they please? As I said, I have no problem with it at all, I think that each President should be able to utilize the donations as they please, decorating the White House and buying whatever flatware they desire.

I'm thinking at least some of the criticism comes more out of a dislike for Bush than it does out of a problem with the spending choices.

When the Obamas move in, there is a warehouse of furniture that they can choose from. In furnishing the White House they will not be spending a great deal of money the way people wish to believe. Until the Obamas actually move in, it really is pointless to bring up that issue.

As for the part about the dislike of Bush, I dare say that those who don't think it is a poor choice in this economy are saying that because they are Bush supporters. It should occur to you that some people have the ability to prevent their dislike of Bush from clouding their judgment in all matters that concern him. For instance, I don't like Bush. I think he is a horrible president, but I was still appalled and angry that someone dared to throw a shoe at him. He did not deserve that kind of disrespect. So when I have issue with themoney spent on the china, it is not because of my dislike for him, it is because I think it was a poor choice in this economy.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

As for the part about the dislike of Bush, I dare say that those who don't think it is a poor choice in this economy are saying that because they are Bush supporters. It should occur to you that some people have the ability to prevent their dislike of Bush from clouding their judgment in all matters that concern him. For instance, I don't like Bush. I think he is a horrible president, but I was still appalled and angry that someone dared to throw a shoe at him. He did not deserve that kind of disrespect. So when I have issue with themoney spent on the china, it is not because of my dislike for him, it is because I think it was a poor choice in this economy.

I don't think it's a poor choice......and i'm not a Bush supporter. Shocker!

They've got the china, it wasn't paid with your tax money---Seriously, just get over it.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

When the Obamas move in, there is a warehouse of furniture that they can choose from. In furnishing the White House they will not be spending a great deal of money the way people wish to believe. Until the Obamas actually move in, it really is pointless to bring up that issue.

As for the part about the dislike of Bush, I dare say that those who don't think it is a poor choice in this economy are saying that because they are Bush supporters. It should occur to you that some people have the ability to prevent their dislike of Bush from clouding their judgment in all matters that concern him. For instance, I don't like Bush. I think he is a horrible president, but I was still appalled and angry that someone dared to throw a shoe at him. He did not deserve that kind of disrespect. So when I have issue with themoney spent on the china, it is not because of my dislike for him, it is because I think it was a poor choice in this economy.

Well, I'm not a Bush supporter, MysticCat isn't a Bush supporter, epchick isn't a Bush supporter, Munchkin isn't a Bush supporter, and KSigRC isn't a Bush supporter. So, that makes a group of us who aren't Bush supporters, but don't think it's a big deal.

I also wasn't pointing directly at you in making my comment - I was more making the comment generally.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

In fact I did NOT say that Americans CANNOT visit the White House. I said they BARELY can visit. So he did not show that my statement was not accurate. He showed that he did not properly read and comprehend the sentence. There is a difference. I stand by my original statement. I will add that it is extremely difficult to get an opp to visit the White House. You have to jump through major hoops. Too many hoops for the "china to belong to all of us."

Oh. (LOL? Come on.)

Actually, I'll edit this, because this is completely ridiculous - you said "people can barely get near the White House, let alone even visit it" and now you want me to believe you meant "let alone can barely even visit it"? OK - dude, it's OK to misstep every once in a while. It actually adds credibility. But hey - let's ignore all context clues and pretend MysticCat and I are idiots instead! Scrabble for rolls?

On the whole, though, you're being kind of . . . unfair? Short-sighted? I mean, the china was ordered a long time ago, and they can't control when it arrives, so . . .

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

In fact I did NOT say that Americans CANNOT visit the White House. I said they BARELY can visit.S o he did not show that my statement was not accurate. He showed that he did not properly read and comprehend the sentence. There is a difference.

You said Americans "can barely get near the White House, let alone even VISIT it." The clear implication is that while we can "barely get near" the White House, it is next-to-impossible to visit it. I'll take your word as to what you meant, but what you said doesn't quite match up with what you meant. So apparently, it's not that KSig RC can't read and comprehend what you wrote; it's that you had some trouble writing in such a way as to convey what you actually meant.

And to be honest, I think you're way overstating the hoops that have to be jumped through to visit the White House. Having jumped through those hoops not that long ago, I can assure you it's really not that hard at all. You pretty much just call your Representative far enough in advance, let him or her know when you want to come, provide some basic background information and that's about it. Took one phone call.

As for whether the china "belongs to us" or not, it belongs to us all collectively, just like any other public property does.

As for the Obamas moving in, they receive a budget of $100,000 in public funds for redecorating. (Not that much in the grand scheme of things.) Anything spent beyond that will come from a foundation like the White House Historical Association (the foundation that paid for the new china).

I'm just still not seeing the big deal -- and as KSigKid says, I'm not a Bush supporter. I'm counting the minutes until he moves out of the White House. I just never saw the point of Bush-bashing purely for the sake of Bush-bashing either.

[cuteASAbug]

I just spent $60 on my China from Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Anyone care? Didn't think so. If it's not taxpayer money, then how it was spent, and how much of it was spent does not need to get justified to anyone for any reason. I actually think it's a great thing because that's $0.5 million that probably wouldn't have entered our economy in circulation otherwise during the recession.

[AGDee]

I'm probably as anti-Bush as they come and I don't care that they bought new china.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Oh. (LOL? Come on.)

Actually, I'll edit this, because this is completely ridiculous - you said "people can barely get near the White House, let alone even visit it" and now you want me to believe you meant "let alone can barely even visit it"? OK - dude, it's OK to misstep every once in a while. It actually adds credibility. But hey - let's ignore all context clues and pretend MysticCat and I are idiots instead! Scrabble for rolls?

On the whole, though, you're being kind of . . . unfair? Short-sighted? I mean, the china was ordered a long time ago, and they can't control when it arrives, so . . .

actually...as of today..you can barely get near it....

[RU OX Alum]

this is such a non-issue. The President bought some stuff for the white house. (If i read it correctly, it will stay at the white house). It's not like Bush (the person) used his office to gain a set of personal china. And I want the White House to have nice China for foreign leaders, etc. when they come to visit. I don't really care about who had to order it.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

this is such a non-issue. The President bought some stuff for the white house. (If i read it correctly, it will stay at the white house). It's not like Bush (the person) used his office to gain a set of personal china. And I want the White House to have nice China for foreign leaders, etc. when they come to visit. I don't really care about who had to order it.

They should have bought a shoe rack instead.

[ISUKappa]

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

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

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

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You said Americans "can barely get near the White House, let alone even VISIT it." The clear implication is that while we can "barely get near" the White House, it is next-to-impossible to visit it. I'll take your word as to what you meant, but what you said doesn't quite match up with what you meant. So apparently, it's not that KSig RC can't read and comprehend what you wrote; it's that you had some trouble writing in such a way as to convey what you actually meant.

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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

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.

WHAT are you talking about? 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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

END OF ARGUMENT RRAAAAARRRRR