- Reaction score
- 507
- Location
- Among the ravens, among the wolves
And which you now bemoan, too. Hey, ain't that a pip.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.He is basically arguing '"it's the source and not the content"...which is what he pretends to bemoan.
WutAnd which you now bemoan, too. Hey, ain't that a pip.
Which was addressed.Op even called out Rove in the title
No. You don't, do you.nimrods don’t logic too good.
You don't understand it; don't project.He doesn't even seem to understand his own stance on this issue either.
And since you -- by your own admission, right there -- don't actually read the content, the only thing you're judging is the sources.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.
HahahahaIn 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.
That's true. I'll grant you that one. You're willfully ignorant irrespective of what you're ignoring.I am consistent with what I've said
That'd be a little thing we call context, you absolute cabbage.while you've flipped more than a whore politician in front of a mic while being questioned by a reporter.
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.
Concession accepted.You can go fuck yourself, you ugly little bitter bitch of a male.
Concession accepted.
You think 'ignorant' is an insult?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.
Looks to me like you're the 'victim' here today.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.
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 is among the worst at this illogical bullshit.I posted the same thread topic. I got similar responses.
*sigh*