OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?
On Oct 21, 4:08*pm, Hawke wrote:
You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people "trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were removed. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and 26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all. You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right? Hawke You have a convient memory. Your statement was "Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was refuted by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by the Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false." Note the words NO DAMAGE. No means none. It does not mean only $20,000 in damages. $20,000 is way above the threshold from misdemeanor to felony. Dan |
OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?
|
OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?
On Oct 22, 8:35*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote: On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, *wrote: You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people "trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were removed. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and 26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all. You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right? Hawke You have a convient memory. *Your statement was "Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was refuted by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by the Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false." Note the words NO DAMAGE. *No means none. *It does not mean only $20,000 in damages. *$20,000 is way above the threshold from misdemeanor to felony. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged". Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled people leaving the place like they were accused of. I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know what it looks like when a property is damaged. Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies. Hawke I do not believe utter lies. I do believe what is in the GAO official report. The 20k was according to he GAO. The point is you said no damage and that is not true according to an official government report. It sounds as if it was done on purpose because it was. Removing key caps is deliberate as in done on purpose. If you want to believe there was no damage, be my guest. Just remember not many people agree with you. Dan |
OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?
|
OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?
On Oct 23, 5:46*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 10/22/2011 7:41 PM, wrote: On Oct 22, 8:35 pm, *wrote: On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote: On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, * *wrote: You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people "trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were removed. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and 26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all. You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right? Hawke You have a convient memory. *Your statement was "Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was refuted by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by the Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false." Note the words NO DAMAGE. *No means none. *It does not mean only $20,000 in damages. *$20,000 is way above the threshold from misdemeanor to felony. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged". Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled people leaving the place like they were accused of. I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know what it looks like when a property is damaged. Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies. Hawke I do not believe utter lies. *I do believe what is in the GAO official report. *The 20k was according to he GAO. The point is you said no damage and that is not true according to an official government report. It sounds as if it was done on purpose because it was. *Removing key caps is deliberate as in done on purpose. If you want to believe there was no damage, be my guest. *Just remember not many people agree with you. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan What I believe is that the White House was left in good condition when the Clinton's left it. I also believe that the accusation that it was "trashed" when they left was a lie. I'm sure it wasn't left like a model home when the Clinton's left but I don't think that there was anything other than incidental and minor damage that would occur any time a large group of people moved out of a large building. I wouldn't be surprised that the White House was in even worse condition when the first Bush moved out. Those kinds of things happen all the time. I doubt that even you think the White House was trashed when the Clinton's moved out. Don't forget, that is what was alleged. And that was a lie. Hawke So what you are saying is that you do not believe what was reported in newspapers and by the GAO. What would you accept as proof? Dan |
OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?
|
OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?
On Oct 25, 9:08*pm, Hawke wrote:
The accusation was that the White House was trashed by the Clintons. I'm telling you that is completely false, a lie. It was not trashed. What the report said was there was some damage. It did not say the place was trashed. So Dan, was it trashed or not? And what does trashed mean? A little bit of minor damage or it was wrecked? In my book trashed means it was left like it was trash. Did the report say it was in that kind of condition? No. So it was a lie that the place was trashed. Hawke This is the original accusation. How about all the damage done to the White House by Billy Blowjob's underlings before George W moved in ($15,000 worth of damage: ripping phone cords from the walls, defacing bathrooms, leaving obscene voicemail messages, and removing the "W" keys from the keyboards); proud of that, too, Dave? Note carefully the word trashed is not in this statement. Note the original statement said $15,000 in damages. That is less than what the official report said. You claimed the original statement was false, but the official report says it was true. In face of this overwhelming evidence why don't you admit you were wrong. Continuing to claim you are right just shows you are extremely biased. Dan |
OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?
|
OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?
On Oct 26, 5:59*pm, Hawke 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. 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. 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. Dan |
OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?
|
OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?
On Oct 26, 8:51*pm, Hawke wrote:
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. Hawke Still trying to worm your way out of not admitting you were wrong. The original post said there was $15,000 in damages. You said that was false, there was no damage. And now you are saying $15,000 damage is no damage. Logically you can not say the original poster was wrong. You claim to have an IQ above the average, but you sure are not showing it in this discussion. Dan |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter