Reply to WH announces construction of 90,000 sq foot ballroom to WH

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "WH announces construction of 90,000 sq foot ballroom to WH"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]They are not destroying the White House.  They are adding a ballroom.  They are not tearing down the East Wing, they are adding a ballroom.  They took down the facade.

Why do they need a ballroom?  Do you really think that having State dinners in a tent is a good thing?  That is what they have been doing.  As well as being second class, it is a security issue.

Taxpayers are not paying for it.

[/quote]

The spokesperson has arrived!  Now explain the 90,000 square foot part, the lack of permits, and the complete lack of consultation with the usual reviewers of such plans.[/quote]

The State Dining Room in the White House seats 140 and suited the other Presidents just fine for 200 years[/quote]

Really?
https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/obama.state.dinner/index.html
[b]The dinner, in a tent set up on the White House South Lawn[/b] with a view of the Washington Monument, featured round tables for 10 set in resplendent colors -- apple green, ruby, gold -- with floral arrangements of roses, hydrangeas and sweet peas in plum, purple and fuchsia.
[/quote]

So because Obama did one event outside is a reason to gut the East Wing of th white house and install a gaudy and completely ahistoric structure that overwhelms the original white house?[/quote]

That part of the White House is not original, it’s from the 1940’s Karen. [/quote]

The party line has arrived, folks. Thank you stooge for enlightening us. [/quote]

Did you even read the PP? Of course you didn’t clown.[/quote]

Yes, I read that MAGA fool said because the East Wing was expanded in 1942 that it's not original and fine to tear down. I suggested that was the new MAGA talking point? How else am I supposed to interpret: "That part of the White House is not original, it’s from the 1940’s Karen." ???[/quote]

So you didn’t read it. The claim was the post being torn down was original. It’s not. It’s from 1940s. Never said it wasn’t historic, that wasn’t what I was referring to, i merely stated it’s not original. And I’m not MAGA, thanks. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics