Karl Rove, the most evil man in the universe pre-Trump

[Mr. Wednesday]

He is basically arguing '"it's the source and not the content"...which is what he pretends to bemoan.

And which you now bemoan, too. Hey, ain't that a pip.

 

[Admin.]

And which you now bemoan, too. Hey, ain't that a pip.

Wut

 

[Admin.]

Op even called out Rove in the title, nimrods don’t logic too good.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

Op even called out Rove in the title

Which was addressed.

nimrods don’t logic too good.

No. You don't, do you.

 

[Lily]

Wut

I don't bemoan the content. I rarely even read it and say so. I've said time and again I do consider the sources.

He says he cares about content and not sources.

Reading comprehension isn't his thing. He doesn't even seem to understand his own stance on this issue either.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

He doesn't even seem to understand his own stance on this issue either.

You don't understand it; don't project.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

I don't bemoan the content. I rarely even read it and say so. I've said time and again I do consider the sources.

And since you -- by your own admission, right there -- don't actually read the content, the only thing you're judging is the sources.

So you're agreeing, or disagreeing, purely by political allegiance rather than on merit.

When it comes to evaluating an op-ed -- a printed opinion -- that's absolutely legitimate.

Karl Rove's opinion is that of a greedy, unprincipled, warmongering shitbucket.

But -- and here's a crucial thing many on the left seem to have profound difficulty coming to terms with -- opinions and facts are not the same thing. Consequently, they can't be legitimately evaluated on the same bases.

 

[Lily]

And since you -- by your own admission, right there -- don't actually read the content, the only thing you're judging is the sources.

So you're agreeing, or disagreeing, purely by political allegiance rather than on merit.

When it comes to evaluating an op-ed -- a printed opinion -- that's absolutely legitimate.

Karl Rove's opinion is that of a greedy, unprincipled, warmongering shitbucket.

But -- and here's a crucial thing many on the left seem to have profound difficulty coming to terms with -- opinions and facts are not the same thing. Consequently, they can't be legitimately evaluated on the same bases.

I am consistent with what I've said, while you've flipped more than a whore politician in front of a mic while being questioned by a reporter.

 

[Garraty_47]

In my experience ex-public figure cretins like Karl Rove or Hillary Clinton or whoever opining on current events is never a case of unique perspective or relevant new details; it's always agenda-driven spew that only gets coverage because the cretin has name recognition.

Even if it's a war criminal obviously trying to excuse their own complicity in horrific events they'll still be interviewed, treated seriously, and likely not in any danger of pushback against their lies and false narratives.

All just because they have a face most people can recognize.

It's the foulest part of the access "journalism" passing itself off as 'news' these days.

 

[Admin.]

In my experience ex-public figure cretins like Karl Rove or Hillary Clinton or whoever opining on current events is never a case of unique perspective or relevant new details; it's always agenda-driven spew that only gets coverage because the cretin has name recognition.

Even if it's a war criminal obviously trying to excuse their own complicity in horrific events they'll still be interviewed, treated seriously, and likely not in any danger of pushback against their lies and false narratives.

All just because they have a face most people can recognize.

It's the foulest part of the access "journalism" passing itself off as 'news' these days.

Hahahaha

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

I am consistent with what I've said

That's true. I'll grant you that one. You're willfully ignorant irrespective of what you're ignoring.

while you've flipped more than a whore politician in front of a mic while being questioned by a reporter.

That'd be a little thing we call context, you absolute cabbage.

 

[Lily]

That's true. I'll grant you that one. You're willfully ignorant irrespective of what you're ignoring.

That'd be a little thing we call context, you absolute cabbage.

You can go fuck yourself, you ugly little bitter bitch of a male.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

You can go fuck yourself, you ugly little bitter bitch of a male.

Concession accepted.

 

[Lily]

Concession accepted.

No, there's no use arguing with an individual that's just going to hurl insults. You got back what you dished out, fugly.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

No, there's no use arguing with an individual that's just going to hurl insults. You got back what you dished out, fugly.

You think 'ignorant' is an insult?

You ignore things as a matter of voluntary persistent policy. A policy of ignoring information is known as ignorance. A person who engages in ignorance is ignorant.

You've overtly admitted to being ignorant, right here in this thread. You're angry that I agree with you on that point?

 

[Lily]

You think 'ignorant' is an insult?

You ignore things as a matter of voluntary persistent policy. A policy of ignoring information is known as ignorance. A person who engages in ignorance is ignorant.

No, that's not it. Stop being duplicitous. That's not all you said.

Again, I regret engaging with you. It never amounts to anything worthwhile.

Be the bitter, lonely and mostly ignored poster that you choose to be. You relish your victimhood.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

No, that's not it. Stop being duplicitous. That's not all you said.

Again, I regret engaging with you. It never amounts to anything worthwhile.

Be the bitter, lonely and mostly ignored poster that you choose to be. You relish your victimhood.

Looks to me like you're the 'victim' here today.

 

[Lily]

Looks to me like you're the 'victim' here today.

Well, we know you're blind as a bat.

 

[LotusBud]

I posted the same thread topic. I got similar responses.

*sigh*

It's unbelievable how they think such a vapid argument would be some sort of "gotcha." Good lord. There is not one person on the planet who is always right OR always wrong. @Neil B. Formi (Now @Mr. Wednesday. Why the fuck does this moron keep changing his name?) is among the worst at this illogical bullshit.

 

[LotusBud]

In my experience ex-public figure cretins like Karl Rove or Hillary Clinton or whoever opining on current events is never a case of unique perspective or relevant new details; it's always agenda-driven spew that only gets coverage because the cretin has name recognition.

Even if it's a war criminal obviously trying to excuse their own complicity in horrific events they'll still be interviewed, treated seriously, and likely not in any danger of pushback against their lies and false narratives.

All just because they have a face most people can recognize.

It's the foulest part of the access "journalism" passing itself off as 'news' these days.

I'm sure Rove has an agenda. And yes, journalism has mostly died.

That doesn't change the fact that Trump is a clear and present danger, and Rove was right about one thing: This will not end well.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

I'm sure Rove has an agenda. And yes, journalism has mostly died.

That doesn't change the fact that Trump is a clear and present danger, and Rove was right about one thing: This will not end well.

Rove is defending a corrupt system which he used to enrich himself at the expense of American lives. Trump is doing what he can to scour the rot out of that system, so of course Rove sees him as a monster.

 

[Lily]

It's unbelievable how they think such a vapid argument would be some sort of "gotcha." Good lord. There is not one person on the planet who is always right OR always wrong. @Neil B. Formi (Now @Mr. Wednesday. Why the fuck does this moron keep changing his name?) is among the worst at this illogical bullshit.

It seems men are just as, if not more, emotional as they claim we are. Reactive.

As for the annoying twit, he os often arguing in circles. I find him to be a complete waste of time.

 

[Admin.]

Rove is defending a corrupt system which he used to enrich himself at the expense of American lives. Trump is doing what he can to scour the rot out of that system, so of course Rove sees him as a monster.

Name the “rot” Trump and his band of Gypsy’s have scoured out.

 

[LotusBud]

What you should've learned is that if an evil cock-licker says something you agree with, and you find yourself in agreement with an evil cock-licker, maybe you should reevaluate whether it's really moral to hold a position which is appealing to evil cock-lickers, and -- just maybe -- what holding that position indicates about you.

So, if an evil cock-licker says ped.....o....phil.....ia is bad, then I must believe it's GOOD, because evil cocklicker is ALWAYS wrong.

Gotcha, Einstein.