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

[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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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).

There are footballs that aren't properly inflated, too - that doesn't change the score of last night's game.

Seriously, formal logic, ace.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by epchick

The Bush family is NOT paying for the china. If you even read the article, you'd know that the White House Historical Association is paying for the china (as they did for the Reagans and the Clintons).
The only thing the Bush family has to do with this china is that they picked the design.

I know that they are not paying for the China! My point is that it was the Bush family's choice to buy the china. Like I said before I think that this is horrible timing and sends a bad impression. I also don't agree with the purchase because I think that art would have been more sensible than China especially because the incomming fam may buy new China.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Your analogy is off in so many ways. To make it a bit more on target, my next door neighbor would have ordered that couch a few years ago, before any economic turndown. He didn't pay for it with his own money or with my money -- he paid for it with a gift of money that came with the stipulation that it can only be used for buying new furniture for the house, or something else valuable for the house, or not spending the money at all. And while he has other couches already, they are not sufficient to meet the entertaining needs that everyone in the neighborhood expects him to fulfill on our behalf, which is one reason we've been letting him and his family live in the house to begin with.
The thing about the china is that since it was paid for years ago (the price of it was still extreme to me) and is just being delivered now the only thing I'm really talking about is impression and appearance. Even if your neighbor ordered the couch two years ago I believe that the couch would factor into your decision to give him money. I did not say it should but it will.

The money that was used to buy the china couldn't have been used for some other purpose, such as helping people who are having trouble paying mortgages. The money came from a foundation, which can only spend its funds on items related to the care, conservation, history and furnishing of the White House. So, there were three choices here: spend the money on china for the White House, spend the money on something else for the White House<-- what I said would have been a better choice in my opinion, or don't spend the money at all <---Also an option they could have used. They spent the money on china, putting a half-million dollars back into the economy that might not have been there otherwise.

Just not that big of a deal.

^^ I agree that its not that big of a deal. As I said the money is spent and I wouldn't reverse it if I could. That does not mean that I agree with the purchase. I happen to believe that there could have been a better purchase and much better timing.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Also, there seems to be a belief that spending money during a recession is bad. This is false. The BEST thing for those with money to do right now is SPEND it - businesses are going under because there simply are no buyers. If money doesn't start moving we are going to have even more problems- a terrible trickle down effect which some are feeling even as we speak.

I know that when in a recession the government spends money to keep our economy at equalibrium. This is the reason that the New Deal was a success. What I'm saying is that in a recession money should be spent in a more concientious manner. FDR spent money on the arts (which many people considered frivolous) but it was money well spent. I happen to put new China in the unnecessary and frivolous category.

While I agree in part about the need for people to spend money I also understand that if the people with money spend their money they will not be the people with money for long. In a recession most people cannot afford to be buyers. The only thing I would consider buying is CDs, Bonds, and other things that garuntee a return. The thing about the trickle down effect is that when there are cut backs they trickle all the way down, but when there are profits, they dont necessarily trickle.

[ASTalumna06]

Damn. So this is what happens when you don’t read a thread for 24 hours.

First of all, this isn’t the first time that deepimpact has said something that was “misconstrued.” If, when she said “visit,” she meant that to mean, “We all can't eat with the china,” then that’s all she had to say. “Hey, I’m sorry everyone, but what I meant was...” Simple enough.

Anyway, the fact that people are getting all crazy about this kind of baffles me. There are 132 rooms in the White House. I’ve visited there 5 times; 3 times on the general tour, and twice in the West Wing (and yes, it’s pretty easy to visit. Hell, I’ve played with the President’s dog in the rose garden!). Still, I’ve only seen a fraction of the house. I don’t get mad because I can’t use the glassware, or because I can’t sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, or because I can’t throw a strike in the bowling alley. The entire house belongs to the country, but we, as the general public, don’t have access to about 95% of it. Why don’t we all get mad that we can’t use the presidential toilet paper?!

Any way you look at it, this wasn’t paid for with taxpayer’s money. So what’s the problem? If I went out and bought a speed boat right now, would you come knocking down my door saying, “Hey, we’re in a recession!”

[agzg]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

If I went out and bought a speed boat right now, would you come knocking down my door saying, “Hey, we’re in a recession!”

No, but you can bet I'd be knocking down your door come summer, asking if you can take me waterskiing.

But seriously, I have my own skis!

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

No, but you can bet I'd be knocking down your door come summer, asking if you can take me waterskiing.

But seriously, I have my own skis!

It's a date.