What Did Joe Say? What Possessed Him To Say That?

1. 78

   Sharlee01posted 3 years ago

   
   Yesterday I (Feb 2, 2021) watched Biden expressing his condolences to the families of two FBI agents that were killed while trying to serve a warrant in Florida. President Biden used some eyebrow-raising words, that shocked me almost out of my seat.   “By in large the vast majority of these men and women are decent, honorable people.”
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2d4Zte5iVU
   
   I wondered immediately after hearing Biden utter those derogatory words --- what any and all  FBI agencies that were in earshot were thinking when they heard him say that.  I also wondered what I would have felt if I was related to either FBI agent that lost their lives in the line of duty.
   
   So, do words matter, or just who is saying the words?  I have been listening to the loud mantra for four years that words matter.    Now,  I listened to Biden's entire short speech yesterday, so I missed nothing of its context. It certainly sounded like Joe was being political, always thinking of the left base he needs to feed.  He totally looked to be in control of his thoughts. So, I can't dismiss his words as him being flustered or hurried, as I have witnessed him in the past. He was relaxed, and actually had the little crib cards that he was glancing at. I must admit the thought crossed my mind that he may have written that carless sentiments himself? 
   
   Can't imagine the media storm his words would have caused If Trump would have uttered those same words.
   
   I have added a link to the press conference where the White House made an attempt to walk the statement back. https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … fbi-agents
   
   So, do words matter or, just who is saying the words?  And --- is this the kind of sentiment helpful in mending a Nation?  Was Biden politicking,  feeding red meat to the left that hopes to defund or denature law enforcement?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      “By and large the vast majority of these men and women are decent, honorable people.”I
      
      Sounds accurate to me. You can't accurately say all 100% are decent, honorable people because it would be false. Derek Chauvin certainly is not.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I agree there are bad apples in the FBI, no argument there. I just found it unnecessary and inappropriate to bring up the point that there are “By in large the vast majority of these men and women are decent, honorable people.”  while offering condolences, and paying tribute to these two FBI officers that were killed?   Seemed to me when offering condolences it's to offer heartfelt sentiments to the loved ones that lost a loved one.  Not to critique their workplace or in this case the agents that work in that workplace as most being honorable. IMO, he presented a very negative dog whistle, but I have noticed he does this in every speech he gives. It would not surprise me to hear Biden may have hired Obama's speechwriter.  Obama had the same habit, always add negative connotations to every speech. 
         
         My point, why impune anyone or in this case the other agents that work in our FBI?  In my view, he was politicking, hence crib cards with his now newsworthy statement that worked to ultimately insult  FBI agents in general.
         
         Did you have the same reasoning or sentiment in regard to Trump's statement where he claimed "There are good people on both sides"? When he tried to point out the people that were at the Charlottesville protest that were there to strictly protest the removal of their Towns statues.  You know the comment the media claimed he was supporting white supremacists, not the citizens that lived in Charlottesville that just wanted to keep the statues in place.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think it's the same by any stretch of the imagination.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I can respect that... Just a different thought process.   I appreciated you addressing the subject.

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Have to go with PP here - the statement was absolutely factual and true (even though only an opinion) and I'm sure he meant it just as it came out.
                  
                  Also have to go with you on Trump's comment about the Charlotsville thiing.  The two comments are absolutely the same; the only difference is the use of "interpretation" to decide one is evil and one good.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I mean if you watch he was reading off of his little crib cards Someone wrote that for him to foment.
                     
                     I think it is important to point his statement out. I have watched as he drops these kinds of jewels every time he speaks.
                     
                     The Charlottesville was very much the same. I could point out several other correlations where Trump was villainized for his words being reported out of context. Joe's statement was not an off the cuff comment like most of Trump's as I said someone wrote these words for him to say. red meat for those that hate law enforcement. He would not want to lose their support would he?

                     replyreport
      2. 93

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Are you sure he wasn't speaking in code, and to a base of people that will now begin shooting FBI agents?

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Was he speaking in code? No way ---- He is just is not Trump.

            replyreport
2. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

   I'm truly not seeing how you can equate the two statements.
   
   President Biden's statement is 100% true, without quesrion. Trump's Charlottesville statement cannot be true, unless you believe Nazis, white supremacists or those who would knowingly walk with them are good and decent people. That s what caused the outrage. Most people do not think any of those meet the standard of good and decent. I suppose if you believe any of those folks are good and decent people (Nazis, white supremacists, or those who walk with them), then you would find his statement to be acceptable.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The only difference is that Biden said MOST FBI agents are good while Trump said that at least ONE supremacist was basically decent and good.  And I'm pretty sure that at least one of those decrying the destruction of national monuments is a good person.
      
      Both, then, made a true statement - the only difference is that people refuse to acknowledge Trump's statement for what it said while demanding that Biden's means what IT said.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I understand that's how you see it. The way I see it, if you look around and you're standing with Nazis and white supremacists, and you're okay with that, you're not good or decent.
         
         Different values, I guess.

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Or a different understanding of reality.  A willingness to change "ONE supremacist was basically decent and good" into "you're standing with Nazis and white supremacists, and you're okay with that, you're not good or decent."

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Yep, different reality.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Like the different reality you get when you look up the word 'people' in the dictionary and interpret that as being singular.  Alternate facts just became alternate definitions.

                  replyreport
   2. 78

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I did not dispute the truth of Biden's statement. Read my comment... I disputed the need for making such a statement when honoring two FBI agents. One would think he would have honored the agency they gave their lives for, instead of adding a negative connotation at the end.  I pointed this very habit he has and does frequently when summing up his speeches. He drops a negative line --- I remembered this tactic from speech class. They always take away what you say first and last. It cheap ploy on his part to frequently close on a negative point. Have a listen to a speech or two of his on Youtube. Oh, and then there is the delivery, he changes timber frequently lowering his voice to a whisper ...  Another thing recommended one do to keep their audience's attention.
      He is so obvious with his dog whistles.
      
      There was no reason to add in his dig at law enforcement at the end of his words. He was politicking in a disgusting obvious manner.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         It's only disgusting if you're looking for the negative side.  Otherwise, you take it to mean that almost all are decent and honorable, including the ones he was there to honor.  As always, he's being honest and it's sad that his honesty offends you.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Mind-blowing hypocrisy. BOOM! You call it honest, I call it cheap politicking. Guess we will need to once again agree to disagree.

            replyreport
            1. 87

               Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Damn that Hypospray.  Guess I'll be safe from all those hypos for a while.
               
               Maybe if Biden had said that those FBI agents 'must have known what they signed up for,' you would have been more supportive.  Or if he had said, 'I don't get it.  What was in it for them?'
               
               That's the level of supportive speech you've been voting for in the past two elections.  So, not sure you're really an expert on what constitutes consoling a grieving family.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey, I will give him credit for reading his little crib notes.  Actually, I should not have come down so hard on old Joe.  After all, he did not make out the flashcards for the day. I think he is using the same guy Obama used to write his skits.   No really, same structure, same tone, with that all too negative familiar punchline.
                  
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWDAQtoL25A

                  replyreport
                  1. 87

                     Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     The only negativity I see if yours...this entire thread says more about you than about Biden.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        That's your opinion. I think his dog whistles need to be pointed out. I was actually reviewing a few other of his speeches to add to this thread. Just to further prove my observation. He is so negative one can cut it with a knife. Even his inaugural speech was soaked with doom and gloom.  But, he is keeping with the lefties propensity for hand wringing drama............. You got yourself a real winner.
                        
                        It's obvious you don't like getting a bit of what you gave for four years. Buckle up, Biden Joe is an accident  just waiting to happen --- Daily

                        replyreport
                        1. 87

                           Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           If you think what Biden said compares to what I listed from Trump, go ahead.  PP and I will respond with the appropriate amount of mocking that this thread deserves.

                           replyreport
                           1. 78

                              Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              I expect no less...  LOL  So, it would appear you admit to following Trump's every word, and posting them.  "what I listed from Trump". Yet you find it a problem when I post Biden quotes. Seems like something a kick-wall five-year-old would say ---" I can say whatever I want. But you can't!" 
                              
                              This thread is factual, I presented Biden's very words. I posted a link to the full context of his condolence speech. I also offered a link that provides a press conference where Jen Psaki made an attempt to walk back his words. I was very fair in my presentation. I gave my opinion, added info for anyone to have a look and create their own opinion.   I am sure you don't like me pointing out Biden's dog whistles. But that is your problem.   I think his speech was loud and clear, and it reached the ears of those it was intended.
                              
                              Your mocking in this case tells me so much about you. Provides me with insight into your ideologies, and your thought process. So, I hope you continue to comment on anything I post.

                              replyreport
                              1. 87

                                 Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 The thread is opinion, not factual, taken straight off of Fox News.  Yes, you posted Biden's words, but your, and their, interpretation is both childish and a waste of time.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 93

                                    wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    That's rather comical considering the claims that Trump speaks in "code" to his followers and the massive spin "interpreting" that code.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 78

                                       Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                       No need to decode Biden's words, he was pretty straight up in this "condolence speech". Straight up negative, and tossing red meat to lefties that dislike any form of law enforcement.  He is simply reading what is put in front of him.  The Democrats use that same playbook and have for years. They never miss an opportunity to reach out to anyone that they feel they need to reach out to when at a podium that will reach millions. No matter what they need to serve up, a speech on foreign affairs or a condolence sentiment  --- work in some red meat to feed the hungry negative supporters.  IT keeps them happy and filled with satisfying rhetoric.

                                       report
                                       1. 93

                                          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                          Oh, I didn't mean to rag on you!  I just found it funny that you are being taken to task for "interpreting" while repeating the exact words...after all the hoorah about Trump talking in "code" and all the interpretation of his speech, changing the meaning of simple words to something sinister.
                                          
                                          It just struck me as comical, that's all.

                                          report
                                          1. 78

                                             Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                             I got you and knew where you were coming from.   I took the opportunity just to reiterate my reasons for the thread and offer how some can be so very hypocritical. Many hearing only what they want to, even if the statement is blatantly clear.  No codebook needed to decipher Biden blurbs.

                                             report
                                 2. 78

                                    Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    Don't watch Fox. I picked up the store at Reuter's and Facebook. I soon realized the end of his speech was cut short. Headed to Youtube found the full video of his speech. Well realized why the media was cutting off his last words. The media is very much protecting this man. Not acceptable in my view. You may like it, I do not.
                                    
                                    Your opinion is yours, mine is backed up with factual words right out of Biden's mouth. Actually not cool that the media is cutting his blurb short. Again you may like that practice I don't.
                                    
                                    And if you found the thread a waste of time, why comment? You sound a bit hypocritical.  Biden said what he said... Hey, I was kind I did not even bring up his confused demeanor. This man can't hold a thought for more than three seconds. Another subject for another time.

                                    replyreport
                           2. 78

                              Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Why not just answer my very provocative questions? 
                              
                              So, do words matter or, just who is saying the words?  And --- is Joe's kind sentiment where he drops a bomb in closing helpful in mending a Nation?  Was Biden politicking,  feeding red meat to the left that hopes to defund or denature law enforcement?

                              replyreport
                              1. 87

                                 Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 Provocative?  Hardly.
                                 
                                 Words matter, but how you interpret them matters just as much.  And we've all seen the different realities that exist when words are spoken during the Trump era.  Everything the man said was a godsend to half the country, inflammatory to the other half.  That dynamic clearly has not changed much when you can look at this statement and focus on the few when the focus should have been on the slain agents.  Instead of focusing on honoring two Americans who gave their lives to uphold the law, you're nitpicking about words that were honest, yet left an opening for criticism.
                                 
                                 The fact that you feel that this is politicking is the equivalent of how you thought there was voter fraud.  You have no evidence, but that doesn't stop you from starting some wild conspiracy theory to Biden's motives, even when he's come out firmly against defund the police.  Keep it up and I'll fully expect to see you at the next Capitol insurrection.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 78

                                    Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    Oh --- back to voter fraud... LOL   So many words. But so little to say.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 87

                                       Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                       So many responses, so little understanding of the attempts at spreading wild conspiracy theories.

                                       report
                                       1. 78

                                          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                          I don't think I have ever, I mean ever fallen into a conspiracy theory.  Very much depend on facts.

                                          report
                                          1. 87

                                             Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                             You just tried to spread the conspiracy theory that Biden was aiming to appeal to the defund the police crowd, even after he forcefully denounced that in his campaign, multiple times.

                                             report
      2. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I find it strange that making an accurate statement is viewed as politicking. It's kind of funny, acrually. Politicians are usually accused of bending the truth when they're politicking.
         
         I just don't see it. Addressing reality should be the norm, while lying, shading the truth or avoiding the truth to gain favor would be politicking.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "Politicians are usually accused of bending the truth when they're politicking." That seems a very naive statement.
            
            IMO Politicking can include kissing butt;  feeding them what they want to hear, Or to state it more politely --  going whichever way the wind blows. 
            
            How do I put this without sounding like I am teaching a bit of etiquette? There is a time and place in polite society to slam the FBI or law enforcement. That would not be when offering condolences.
            
            Biden would not have been lying about the FBI, but he need not have chosen to critique them while offering a heartfelt sentiment. He used the occasion to politic.  He is old school, I would have excepted nothing less than a closer that fed red meat to far-left supporters. 
            
            I feel words of condolence should be kind, speaking well of the dead, offer a shoulder or a hug... I would not think it a time to blast the company they worked for.

            replyreport
3. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

   So, to paraphrase: Joe Biden is going to say things that are true and I'm going to call him out! And these true things are so negative and full of gloom and doom.
   
   But it's the left who engages in hand wringing and drama.
   
   Is that about right?.lol

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      BINGO

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Biden's dog whistles and inappropriate words are pretty frequent.  He is inappropriate much of the time. I have noticed this about him for many many years.  One such gem ---  Referring to  Obama as articulate, bright, and clean.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         So, you do think there were very fine people on both sides at Charlottesville?
         
         Just checking, because that would mean you believe the statement was accurate. Otherwise, you would be a hypocrite, of course.
         
         And, are dog whistles to Nazis and those who marched with them really the same as dog whistles to those who support ending racial systemic inequality?  Keeping in mind, you are th he one equating the two statements.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            You have a way of trying to answer a question you ask yourself.  "So you do think"... Silly --- Lots of silly  I am not buying into your Nazi blurb. The only equation I made between the two statements we are discussing was to point out context. Biden's context was clear it could not be mistaken in my view -- he was politicking during a condolence address. It could not have been more obvious.
            
            Trump's "fine people" statement was also unequivocally clear, and the context was precise. That is to anyone that would have listened to the FULL contents of the press conference in which he made the statement. He kept a very clear context throughout the entire press conference.
            https://www.politifact.com/article/2019 … s-remarks/
            
            Let's return to the subject --- How about just answering the questions I posed? Maybe too Hard.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I already answered the question. You just don't seem to like the answer.
               
               And if you think the context of the two statements are similar, and you think Trump's was acceptable and Biden's was not, then it is you who are the hypocrite.
               
               I do not, in any way, think the two statements are similar, so it makes perfect sense that I think it is acceptable to "dog whistle" (your term) people who care about systemic racial equality while not acceptable to "dog whistle" (your term) Nazis or people who knowingly walk with them.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  "And if you think the context of the two statements are similar, and you think Trump's was acceptable and Biden's was not, then it is you who are the hypocrite."
                  
                  I don't at all think Biden's statement was appropriate in any respect for the occasion, the address he was offering up.
                  
                  I do feel Trump's statement was very appropriate, and his truth. He was having a press conference ---  It was appropriate for the conversation he was having with the press about the violence that occurred in Charlottesville. From his very first words, he was addressing the violence, and condemning the violence "on both sides". As he said there were two groups that were involved and were coming at each other with weapons. The context was very clearly provided for his " I am sure there were fine people on both sides" statement. He was being asked questions in regards to the groups that caused the violence. He was not willing to condemn all that became caught up in that riot. No dog whistle his statement was clear to both sides... One only needs to take the time and listen or read the entire conversation.    His statement was bold but in my assessment of that riot, I agree with his sentiment.  Many were caught up in the violence that did not come to fight but protest peacefully to get their point across, they wanted to keep the statue from being torn down. These were people that actually got a permit to protest.  Trump provided his truth, which he has the right to do. Some just did not want to hear such a stark truth of what really went down that night.
                  
                  People that care about systemic racial equality should care about fairness, the other side, the people of that town had the right to be heard, and not have anyone dictate their one-sided views in this situation. In order to live side by side, we may need to realize we all have the same rights.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I rest my case,as you have provided ample evidence for it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        I have been truthful and offered my opinion. No, I don't buy the crowds view in this case. Very rarely do.  I could actually write your opinion for you.  As you most likely could write mine. This is never a good thing.

                        replyreport
4. 89

   GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

   After following this thread, I will make a comparison of the "hypocrisy" I see—that of those beating up on the poster.
   
   To borrow a phrase I am sure all are familiar with . . . Now here's the deal.
   
   I took three points from the OP:
   
   1. The statement in question was unnecessary—within the context of the president's address.
   
   2. The statement was inappropriate for the message, (one of condolence), and inappropriate and unnecessary for the context of the message, (condolence and praise for effort)
   
   3. The OP thought the inclusion of the statement was politics—pandering to a segment of supporters.
   
   I agree with all three of those points. Yet, the only responses have been to declare the truth of the statement—which no one has denied, and to paint the statement's inclusion as honest transparency—which would also be accurate in another context, but not in this one.
   
   So, here is the relevant part of the video transcript leading up to the statement. The recording ends with that statement. Certainly not a note I would choose to end on.
   
   ". . . My heart aches for the families. I have not had an opportunity, nor will I try today to ah, to contact them, but ah, they put their lives on the line and ah, it's a hellava price to pay and every day every shiny soul(??hard to be sure), stood up on a ah . . By and large the vast vast majority of these men and women are decent honorable people who put themselves on the line. We owe them . . ." [END OF RECORDING]
   
   Does everyone criticizing the OP really feel that statement was an appropriate inclusion for this type of address?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I think you and the OP see the 5% missing from the glass and not the 95% that was mentioned.  Like I said, says more about your own worldview.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         And that response is bullhockey Valeant.
         
         Let's start from the beginning. As you read the words of the president's statement and understand the purpose of his statement, (do we disagree that it was a statement of condolence and support?), do you think that final statement was necessary?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I read it as a true statement meant to insinuate that those two agents who were slain were honest and decent.  Knowing the context of the situation, I would applied the vast majority to include the slain agents. 
            
            If this were a Trump speech, he would have said something like, 'they worked for a very distrustful agency.  And I don't get it, what was in it for them?'  So, I think it's still an upgrade when we get an actual honest statement with the majority referred to as decent and honest.
            
            The fact that the right wants to focus on the miniscule negative side is a reflection of looking to make something from nothing and waste everyone's time.  I find it pathetic, to say the least.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               "If this were a Trump speech, he would have said something like, 'they worked for a very distrustful agency. "
               
               That's pretty much what Joe was dishing up to the loved ones of the fallen agents.  Your really a laugh a minute. No really. Do you see what you just did?  Ya --- pathetic

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Deleted
                  1. 78

                     Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Deleted
                     1. 87

                        Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Call it 'executive time.'  I guess you never visit my profile to make a statement like, 'do you ever leave the keyboard?'

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           My trusty cell travels well.

                           replyreport
                        2. 78

                           Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           I just visited your profile --- "Just a person that enjoys random writing. My Interests are movies, hiking, stamps, and volleyball."
                           
                           AND...

                           replyreport
                           1. 87

                              Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Yeah, hauling that keyboard up those 70 mountains just so I could respond to your conspiracy theories about Biden was so worth it.  Meanwhile, you write about trying on some clothes.  That must be tiring.

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 I think if you looked a bit further you might realize I have offered many diverse articles.  I was pleased to have so many made the recent cut here on HP's.   As well I have shared a profile.  I think it wonderful you have conquered mountain climbing.  It certainly is a wonderful accomplishment.

                                 replyreport
            2. 89

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Hold on now. Back up a step. "If this were a Trump speech"
               
               Nothing in my comment had anything to do with, or said anything about, Trump. So, I will give you a redo. I will look at a new draft of your response to my comment that doesn't include any Trump references or comparisons. Otherwise, you aren't responding to my comment at all. You are just anti-Trumping it on a comment that had nothing to do with Trump. Tsk. tsk.
               
               Ready, set, go . . .
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you for proving my point...you took the middle paragraph of three and discounted the rest of the response, which would have aptly answered your comment on its own.  Go back and eliminate the middle paragraph if you get too distracted by shiny objects.
                  
                  Ready, set, go...
                  
                  Val

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Ha! I didn't discount the rest of your comment. I just didn't address it because you were not addressing my response.
                     
                     If you had addressed my comment I would have responded. But, I take your point. No more "ready, set, go."  You want to address a peripheral point and I want to address a stated point. And those are two different things.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Well, if you'd like a more specific response...Yes, I find his statement needed.  Using words such as decent and honest to deprogram four years of Trump attacking our intelligence services from within is much needed in helping those organizations to be effective. 
                        
                        The fact that we have this thread validates that thought as the right has grabbed onto the negative side of a miniscule opening left by Biden being honest with his statement.

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           I initially missed this reply Valeant. I disagree that it was needed, but in this instance, it is simply a case of opposing opinions. Even though I think mine is right, t I can see how you would also think yours is right.
                           
                           So here we are, on this particular point, ending with equally valid opinions.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
               2. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  To be fair, the author of the OP introduced Tump into the general conversation by comparing Biden's statement to Trump's Charlottesville statement. Also, simply claiming hypocrisy in our responses invites the comparison, unless your hypocrisy claim is about our different position on someone other than Trump. Is it?

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     You got me. I did have to go back and check, and I did find that the OP did introduce a Trump comparison.
                     
                     "Can't imagine the media storm his words would have caused If Trump would have uttered those same words."
                     
                     To that point, it was my bad to say Trump wasn't part of the OP. But, also to my point, I didn't address that Trump reference.
                     
                     So, maybe my defense of the original poster isn't so solid, but, I still stand by the three mentioned points I took from the OP and my criticisms of the subsequent responses that preferred to debate the truthfulness of the statement rather than its appropriateness.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        The fact you actually went back and checked is one of the reasons I enjoy conversing with you.  Kudos.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           ++

                           replyreport
                        2. 89

                           GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           I also think we have good discussions. It's a two-way street.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
   2. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I honesty did not find it offensive. But if you both do, fine. It is just rather ironic given the statement, as Valeant said, was 95% positive,with a qualifier for accuracy.
      
      I don't really have a problem with her points (her opinion) but I do not see it as even remotely similar to the Charlottesville statement, where Trump praised both sides.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I didn't ask if you thought the statement was offensive, I asked if, given the context and purpose of the president's address, you felt the statement was necessary and appropriate.
         
         And since I didn't make any "Trump statement" comparisons, my only question is the one I asked—did you find the statement necessary and appropriate to the president's address?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I do not think it was necessary and he could have simply not said it. It wasn't inappropriate, so I guess that means it was appropriate, in my opinion.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               It looks like we agree. Except for the appropriate part. Considering the text of his statement, and what I thought was the purpose of his statement, I don't think it was an appropriate statement. He didn't need to say it.
               
               GA

               replyreport
   3. 78

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Appreciate your input.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         No worries. I will just as readily criticize you as defend you. In this instance, I completely agree with you. I am seeing many Left-leaning folks finding, early on, that the shoe is pinching when it is on the other foot.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, a great way to out it...  I will use that one.  I have been studying Biden's patterns when speaking. He is using all that I was made aware of in Speech 101.  Open and close with what you want them to really hear.  Hey, I am bored. We still have really limiting mitigations here. Can't travel, can see anyone. So, spending my time with everything Biden.  I think I started with a mild Biden blunder. I am making an effort to not touch on his big old blunders I think he may be making. But, who knows, he may just prove me wrong. I don't want to end up with my shoes pinching me.

            replyreport