Rush Limbaugh Dead at 70

I was more thinking some science people concerned with safety. However, I would restrict guns to a point that would be much better than our present joke of a pretense of gun regulation.

Depends.
I'm optimistic about things humans have actual control over.
Like reversing global warming, and cleaning up the environment.
Fixing poverty.
Getting healthcare to every person in this country.
Stuff like that.

You'd probably put that under "delusional".

Things you have to have "I believe in fairies!" level blind faith in like trickle down economics?
Fuck you.
Cram that nonsense up your ass.

You'd probably put that under all of these....

..and because my reaction is anything less than a doped up poetry writing bliss-ninny type hippie, you'd put it under..

How am I doing?
I'm nailing it, right?

Dude, no offense but do the math.....one oldfella, six pissed off liberals. Everything will make me look like an idiot no matter what I say, which is cool. Six opinions, or sixty opinions doesn't increase the value of said opinions. As for facts if the liberals determine which facts are valid (and factor there are six liberals and one oldfella) it wil appear that you have more facts on your side. Some forums are heavily lib, some forums are heavily conservative - that's the nature of the internet!

Uh, what language do you think we're communicating in?

You, insulting others about their intelligence, is why no one takes you seriously.

Do you really think you have any right, with that attitude, to claim that others are "judgmental"?

our gun regulations are fine at keeping honest people honest. We have thousands of regulations on the books. My point being criminals and crazy people don't give a shit about regulations anyway so you can make stricter laws but it won't effect those people anyway.

well you plainly missed what I wrote. Can't take criticism? Grow a skin.

What makes you think I missed it? What gives you the right to that judgment? And with that kind of judgmental attitude, what gives you the right to criticize others about being "judgmental"?

Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "liberal" makes you look "Judgemental". That's just my opinion of course.

Physician, heal thyself.

(Cue "rainy days on Mondays always get me down" by Karen Carpenter)
(Zoom in on OF's red eyes and snot bubble)

Nice opinion. Too bad it is not based in fact or statics.

You know how some figures on the right have made a catchphrase out of "facts don't care about your feelings"?

Well, that's true. They don't.

Another thing facts don't care about is how many people believe them.

Facts don't change depending on who you surround yourself with.

If it's raining and everyone around you agrees with you that it's sunny, and you go outside, you're still gonna get wet.

I am just glad we did not end up with trump walking around naked while republicans marveled at his new suit.

PETA is such a horrid organization that I'd actually be cheering the cops on that one

But that said, Tafkats is right, they dont drive any major policy the way the NRA has. Even as a left wing organization, they're considered to be the lunatic fringe that only idiot teenagers on Tumblr listen to before the big farmer accounts like Systlin bring in facts about what farming truly entails.

Since you haven't gotten around to answering this (which I don't take as meaning you can't or don't want to; I understand that you may well have been busy), and since I'm going to go to bed, I'll go ahead and answer it myself now. I'll try to use small words, since in your opinion I can't read (or, by implication) write English well.

Here's what you wrote:

I have bolded and underlined the pertinent parts. (Sorry — the parts I want to comment on. I forgot I wasn't supposed to know how to read and write English very well.)

Now let me explain this with a simple illustration:

Suppose you say: "I went to the zoo today and saw lions and tigers and bears (oh, my). That is an incomplete list."

That means that you saw other animals in addition to lions and tigers and bears (oh, my). But it does mean that you saw lions and tigers and bears.

In other words, saying it is an incomplete list does not negate (sorry, forgot again that I can't read and write English as well as you...) mean any of the items on the list aren't true. It just means that there could be more items on the list.

So if I respond to your claim of having seen lions and tigers and bears (oh, my), the additional clarification (sorry, I keep forgetting I don't read and write English as well as you do...) statement that you saw other animals as well doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with my responding to your claims of having seen lions and tigers and bears (oh, my).

All your claims that I can't read English at all well therefore are just another attempt at deflection. They are entirely irrelevant. (Is that another one of those big words I'm not supposed to know? I keep forgetting that I don't read and write English as well as you do.) I showed that the list of things you did mention are actually characteristics of conservatives much more than they are characteristics of liberals, so your criticisms of my ability to read (and, by implication, write) English correctly have nothing to with I wrote. You said there are more items on the list, but you also said this list characterizes most liberals. So thinking that you can somehow weasel out of what you wrote by pretending that there are even more things on the list is patently ludicrous (sorry, I keep forgetting...) completely stupid.

And the way you have behaved in this thread, with your narrow-mindedness and your judgmental attitude toward those who disagree with you, show how completely hypocrital you are in daring to say those attitudes characterize others. Which proves the point of what I wrote very clearly. With facts, not just unsupported claims, that I somehow try to weasel out of by saying "of course, that's just my opinion".

As for your "Can't take criticism? grow a skin" comment, if you think your criticisms bother me at all, that just shows how out-of-touch with reality you are. For a criticism to have any force, it has to have at least some truth to it. The claim that I can't read English well is so monumentally absurd that it is laughable, not hurtful. It just shows me — and everyone else who has read my posts on Wordforge — how little attention you pay to actual, real-world, observable facts.

You want to criticize liberals? Fine. I'll join right with you in doing it, as long as your criticisms have something to do with reality. But that list you made is not just "incomplete"; it is totally wrong, from one end to the other. It is what psychologists call "projection": trying to justify your own shortcomings by pretending that those you don't like have the same shortcomings you do, to an even greater degree.

And trying to get out of it by saying it is "incomplete" does not in any way eliminate or even diminish the fact that you claimed that those items do indeed characterize most liberals.

It is enough for me to know that "peta" means "farted" in French. I can't take seriously a group that calls themselves "farted".

(Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have used that smiley. Oldfella thinks I'm a liberal, and liberals are humorless. I shouldn't make jokes about farted PETA.)

Hey, hypocrite, if you made the claim PETA were terrorists, it'd be one of the few things LeftForge wouldn't be taking you to task for, because most of LeftForge probably has a dim view of PETA to begin with, even though PETA itself is more distasteful than terroristic.

PETA made their PR bed. They can lie in it.

It was the only thing his media sources could suggest to him.

did I say it bothered me? Six opportunities for liberals to show their ass - and they rarely disappoint.

you missed my point. My point was I can say X or Y and one of your fellow libs can say X or Y and we will be treated very differently. Double standard is SOP for liberalism so I expect nothing less.

So how do you feel about the fact that facts don't care about your opinions?

Considering I just demonstrated the PETA example is false, your entire premise fails.

weak sauce! You are reaching like Stretch Armstrong.

Considering Stretch Armstrong has the reach, it's not a stretch to say that once again, your attempt of deflection looks like Judge Doom post steamroller again.

Why do you say that?

I should point out, @oldfella1962, that outside of likely @Paladin, the rest of RightForge does not share your opinions or view of reality.

and that's fine too! At no time did I ever assume everyone on the right would agree with me - I often don't agree with them on everything either.

But you obviously believe Rush was one of the 12 Apostles. Why?

I'm a well known PETA supporter courtesy of Camp Wordforge. What terrorism have they committed? Having scoured the interwebs, their name pops up a lot in the war against terrorism during Bush II's reign. It doesn't seem they did anything other than protest harm to animals.

I think they are the victim of bushism.

What have they done that's distasteful? I'm waiting.

You don't say a lot of shit.
Leaves room for interpretation.
Maybe stop being a sneaky chickenshit.