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

[crescent&pearls]

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?

[AGDLynn]

320 sets

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

Agreed!

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

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. (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.)

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

.

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

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

[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.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Last I checked American citizens can barely get near the White House, let alone even VISIT it. How does the china belong to us?

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!

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

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.

You can go back and forth all you want, but the fact is several people have interpreted deepimpact's comment the same way.

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.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

1. To go to the white house and have a meal on the expensive china that the Bush family bought. [Which DeepImpact2 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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

That's not actually true.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Well said!!!

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?

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Last I checked American citizens can barely get near the White House, let alone even VISIT it. How does the china belong to us?

^^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.

Originally Posted by epchick

No, that is what YOU assumed she (is deepimpact a she?) meant.
Yes. That is what I assumed she (she is a she) meant. I also assumed that if she meant something different she would have made that known when she responded to my post (as she did with you and others who misunderstood), but she did not. She replied "well said" which suggests that I understood what 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.

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

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

That's not actually true.

What is not actually true?