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

[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.

[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.

[MysticCat]

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.

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).

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[KSUViolet06]

I would think that the Bush family falls into the category of people whom the recession doesn't affect.

I'm not a Bush supporter myself, but I fail to see the big deal here.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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).

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

The timing is terribly wrong. I don't care whose funds were used for the purchase. I also don't care about the fact that the china will be used to serve dignitaries and that it is a part of the historical legacy of the mansion.

I also don't buy the notion that the china belongs to all of us. Last I checked American citizens can barely get near the White House, let alone even VISIT it. How does the china belong to us?

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.

[SWTXBelle]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

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

[AGDLynn]

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.