(09-11-2021 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-11-2021 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2021 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-11-2021 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-11-2021 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think it gets personal when one intentionally ignores the entire thrust of a post and then suggests I’m blindly doing something because Biden is a Dem. I’d like to see where I went to great lengths to defend Biden in that post.

Honestly, I dont think OO is making a comment based solely on your limitation of 'in that post'.

I’ve been clear that I think Biden and his administration made mistakes in how they handled the withdrawal, so I want to know how I’ve gone through great lengths to defend Biden.

Sounds like you have some thoughts - let me know where you think I’ve done that, gone through great lengths to defend Biden.

I know its not true to form, but I readily see that any such discussion thereof isnt going to be anywhere near constructive. I think I will pass, thank you.

Exactly - I’m hardly the blind follower the OO makes me out to be. But throw that grenade anyway.

Perhaps you misread -- my 'its not true to form' doesnt refer to you or your actions, or to OO's statement -- it refers to my deferring to scrap with you. That is, the clause that follows the comma. You seemingly want to with me for some reason.

I am simply doing a 'no comment ' to you. Its not worth the effort to have that discussion with you, regardless of my position. I am a gd observer here. That is, one with the hopes you cool down, at least with respect to me.

The only substantive point is that I changed a potential goal post move based on your statement of 'in that post'.