DIYbanter - View Single Post - OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?

Hawke[_3_]

On 10/26/2011 4:54 PM, wrote:
On Oct 26, 5:59 pm, wrote:

Well, all I can tell you is that I was a real estate agent for a number
of years. I've seen all kinds of property damage during that time. The
way I interpreted the accusation against the Clinton's to be was one
where they "trashed" the place. That is the term I heard when I first
heard the story. But from what I have been able to find out since then
is that story was bullcrap.

There was no reason to do any interpreting. You need to read what
people write.

Everything written needs to be interpreted. That's the way language
works. It's complicated and filled with subtleties that have to be
interpreted. You seem to want to interpret everything as if it's a
scientific statement and not a simple dialogue between two people. I
don't think you have a clue as to what a figure of speech is.

The White House is a multimillion dollar property. Fifteen thousand in
damage is very little to that size property that isn't really a house
but is a commercial building as well. When you have one administration
leave the other comes in and does wholesale changes, so if some damage
is done when in the process it's not a big deal. In fact from my
perspective the entire thing is not a big deal.

Big deal or small deal. The fact is the original post said about
$15,000 damage. You said there was no damage. You did not say that
$15,000 was no big deal. Again you said no damage in reply to a
statement that there was $15,000 damage. I take that as saying there
was no damage. You could have said insignificant amount of damage,
but no you had to claim " no damage ". That is a response to a
statement of $15,000 damage. If the truth was there was only $500
damage, you might get by with claiming it was not significant damage.
But the truth is there was more damage than the original poster
claimed, and you say the original statement was false.

The way I see it is in a multimillion dollar building that is changing
hands from one political party to another if only 15K is damaged in the
process I'm going to say that's no damage. That doesn't mean nothing was
damaged it means the damage was so slight that it's not worth
mentioning. For example, someone may say all the walls have holes in
them from pictures and they all have to be filled and the walls
repainted. To you that's damage. It's not to me. It may cost thousands
to fill the holes and repaint, that's true but I wouldn't say that's
damage. Damage is when things are purposely destroyed or ruined.
Intentionally! I heard nothing to suggest the White House had that kind
of damage.

You seem to be wanting it to be so you can prove something negative
about the Clintons. So either they did something really, really, bad
when they left or they didn't. I don't think they did anything even
worth mentioning. But you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The
question is why? You have a an agenda of trying to make the Clinton's
out to be villains or you can't accept that I'm right? Whatever it is
you're really grasping at straws and look desperate. If I were you I
would give up while you can.

Hawke

No I am not trying to prove something negative about the Clintons. I
am proving that you make incorrect statements. I may be making a
mountain out of a mole hill, but the reason is that you will not or
can not reply to clearly worded statements with a rational response.
Why do you insist on denying that you were wrong. It is quite obvious
that you will deny anything negative about any Democrat. You should
admit you were wrong and not keep trying to find an out when it is
obvious to anyone that you are wrong.

Okay, I've given numerous criticisms of Democrats here so that you can't
seriously say I have never criticized them. You can look up where I have
criticized them numerous times. But would you expect to find me making
diatribes against Democrats when everyone knows by now that I hold the
republicans responsible for our economic problems. My criticism of
republicans is based on observable facts not just a whim. But I have
criticized the Democrats and you ought to know that by now.

But here's your problem. Did you see the movie Crocodile Dundee? There
was a scene in one of those movies in NY where someone with a knife came
up and tried to rob Dundee and his girl. The girl said give him our
money, he's got a knife. Dundee says, that's not a knife. Then he pulls
out one of his own which was huge and he says, now this is a knife. If I
wrote that to you it would go right over your head because you would
think that because Dundee said that's not a knife you would think it
wasn't a knife. In reality it was a knife but it was a small one. That
is what Dundee was saying when he said "That's not a knife". See what I
mean. Sometimes that's not a knife means that is a knife.

Ever time I do something like that you get it wrong. When I say no
damage was done it means it was a pittance, minor, not worth mentioning,
not that absolutely nothing was damaged. I was trying to get across the
real point which was that there were anti Clinton shots taken at them by
right wingers to make them look bad. Those were unfair and unjustified.
That's the point. Was there some incidental damage to the White House,
of course. There always is but that's really not even worth bringing up.

Hawke