Rush Limbaugh Dead at 70.

[Rick N. Backer]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

[Rick N. Backer]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

Me too.

 

To tell you the truth, after reading this thread, I wonder why I'm even here. I really don't belong here because I don't fit in.

 

Neither do I but I come back due to nice people like you being here.

 

I'm glad you're here also Turbine.

[JohnRogers]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

Mean things he apologized for or never actually said.

 

In the end none of it matters. Limbaugh and his listeners knew the barbs would come upon the occasion of his death. People don’t like it when you punch them in the mouth, Limbaugh was a brawler.

[grep]

The AIDS victims who's deaths he celebrated didn't hurt anyone intentionally. They didn't spread hate at a time that understanding and science were needed.

 

He victimized an entire sick and helpless segment of the population. For his own gain. I can't be sad that a person like that doesn't exist anymore.

 

Now, Princess Diana. Who showed us that compassion was the way. She's missed. It's sad that she's gone. Because we need more of that.

 

See the difference?

Edited February 22, 2021 by grep

[Fordgalaxy]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

[laughedatbytime]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

We grasp the explanations just fine. Hence the revulsion.

Edited February 22, 2021 by laughedatbytime

[Fordgalaxy]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

We grasp the explanations just fine. Hence the repulsion.

 

You sure speak for RnB or answer questions posed to him a lot. Maybe mind your own business.

[laughedatbytime]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

We grasp the explanations just fine. Hence the repulsion.

 

You sure speak for RnB or answer questions posed to him a lot. Maybe mind your own business.

How about we treat this as a message board and comment whenever the hell we want to? You seem to have no trouble fouling the other subfora with your passive aggressive whining about how you're treated. And no one says a f***ing thing about it.

[Fordgalaxy]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

We grasp the explanations just fine. Hence the repulsion.

 

You sure speak for RnB or answer questions posed to him a lot. Maybe mind your own business.

How about we treat this as a message board and comment whenever the hell we want to? You seem to have no trouble fouling the other subfora with your passive aggressive whining about how you're treated. And no one says a f***ing thing about it.

 

Except you.

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

I figured it wouldn't take long for this thread to blow up.

[laughedatbytime]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

We grasp the explanations just fine. Hence the repulsion.

 

You sure speak for RnB or answer questions posed to him a lot. Maybe mind your own business.

How about we treat this as a message board and comment whenever the hell we want to? You seem to have no trouble fouling the other subfora with your passive aggressive whining about how you're treated. And no one says a f***ing thing about it.

 

Except you.

:facepalm:

 

By the way, RnB doesn't need me or anyone else to speak for him, he can eviscerate your pathetic arguments all by himself, without the slightest effort.

[Fordgalaxy]

I figured it wouldn't take long for this thread to blow up.

 

Blowed up real good.

[Turbine Freight]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

I wouldn't bother if I were you Rick. Pointing out the hypocrisy of people who employ the same tactics which they ostensibly affect to despise is getting you nowhere. You're just flogging a dead horse.

 

For the record, I didn't like Limbaugh, but there's a time and a place.

[driventotheedge]

I figured it wouldn't take long for this thread to blow up.

You're welcome :D

[Rick N. Backer]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

 

Saying someone is a "terrible" person is your opinion, not a fact. Did you not know that? I suspect it would not be uncommon to learn that some believe that using Nazi imagery purportedly to see how it makes people react is despicable. That's also an opinion. Neither of those is a fact.

[Rick N. Backer]

I wouldn't bother if I were you Rick. Pointing out the hypocrisy of people who employ the same tactics which they ostensibly affect to despise is getting you nowhere. You're just flogging a dead horse.

 

For the record, I didn't like Limbaugh, but there's a time and a place.

 

You're undoubtedly right, but as I've said in other contexts, I don't expect to change anyone's mind about things here. When you have the time to bat a topic around, no harm in doing so. Seeing this topic in RS, and the curious tenor of some of the posts, struck me as worth commenting upon.

 

As I also said, I haven't listened to a second of his show in at least a quarter century. I'd be curious to know how many of his detractors here would have to concede the same thing.

[Lorraine]

I wouldn't bother if I were you Rick. Pointing out the hypocrisy of people who employ the same tactics which they ostensibly affect to despise is getting you nowhere. You're just flogging a dead horse.

 

For the record, I didn't like Limbaugh, but there's a time and a place.

 

You're undoubtedly right, but as I've said in other contexts, I don't expect to change anyone's mind about things here. When you have the time to bat a topic around, no harm in doing so. Seeing this topic in RS, and the curious tenor of some of the posts, struck me as worth commenting upon.

 

As I also said, I haven't listened to a second of his show in at least a quarter century. I'd be curious to know how many of his detractors here would have to concede the same thing.

I'll tell you what attitude scares me the most on this thread - guilt by association - you defended him, ergo - you are just like him and will be shunned and anyone else who thinks like you will be given the same treatment.

 

It wasn't said in those words - just my paraphrasing.

[Rick N. Backer]

I wouldn't bother if I were you Rick. Pointing out the hypocrisy of people who employ the same tactics which they ostensibly affect to despise is getting you nowhere. You're just flogging a dead horse.

 

For the record, I didn't like Limbaugh, but there's a time and a place.

 

You're undoubtedly right, but as I've said in other contexts, I don't expect to change anyone's mind about things here. When you have the time to bat a topic around, no harm in doing so. Seeing this topic in RS, and the curious tenor of some of the posts, struck me as worth commenting upon.

 

As I also said, I haven't listened to a second of his show in at least a quarter century. I'd be curious to know how many of his detractors here would have to concede the same thing.

I'll tell you what attitude scares me the most on this thread - guilt by association - you defended him, ergo - you are just like him and will be shunned and anyone else who thinks like you will be given the same treatment.

 

It wasn't said in those words - just my paraphrasing.

 

That's pretty close though.

 

"For those defending him, that puts them in the same category" is a direct quote.

[Fordgalaxy]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

 

Saying someone is a "terrible" person is your opinion, not a fact. Did you not know that? I suspect it would not be uncommon to learn that some believe that using Nazi imagery purportedly to see how it makes people react is despicable. That's also an opinion. Neither of those is a fact.

 

This is but one reason why message board postings are often so frustrating. I was talking about what he said as opinion, and you were talking about what I said. Most of this could have been avoided. As for your last bit, at least one person here seems to factually believe that I'm a despicable person regardless of how many times I've tried to explain it. I might even lean to you believing it too as often as you bring it up.

[Rick N. Backer]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

 

Saying someone is a "terrible" person is your opinion, not a fact. Did you not know that? I suspect it would not be uncommon to learn that some believe that using Nazi imagery purportedly to see how it makes people react is despicable. That's also an opinion. Neither of those is a fact.

 

This is but one reason why message board postings are often so frustrating. I was talking about what he said as opinion, and you were talking about what I said. Most of this could have been avoided. As for your last bit, at least one person here seems to factually believe that I'm a despicable person regardless of how many times I've tried to explain it. I might even lean to you believing it too as often as you bring it up.

 

I bring it up so frequently because you have a tendency to voice strong negative reactions to things people like Limbaugh or Joseph Epstein say or write, which seems incongruous to me.

[Fordgalaxy]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

 

Saying someone is a "terrible" person is your opinion, not a fact. Did you not know that? I suspect it would not be uncommon to learn that some believe that using Nazi imagery purportedly to see how it makes people react is despicable. That's also an opinion. Neither of those is a fact.

 

This is but one reason why message board postings are often so frustrating. I was talking about what he said as opinion, and you were talking about what I said. Most of this could have been avoided. As for your last bit, at least one person here seems to factually believe that I'm a despicable person regardless of how many times I've tried to explain it. I might even lean to you believing it too as often as you bring it up.

 

I bring it up so frequently because you have a tendency to voice strong negative reactions to things people like Limbaugh or Joseph Epstein say or write, which seems incongruous to me.

 

Simple question for you. Did the use of a picture of a Nazi and the use of a rainbow/Confederate flag with swastikas on it rise to the same level of potential despicableness as years of very negative comments and opinions, often making fun of dead people?

[Rick N. Backer]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

 

Saying someone is a "terrible" person is your opinion, not a fact. Did you not know that? I suspect it would not be uncommon to learn that some believe that using Nazi imagery purportedly to see how it makes people react is despicable. That's also an opinion. Neither of those is a fact.

 

This is but one reason why message board postings are often so frustrating. I was talking about what he said as opinion, and you were talking about what I said. Most of this could have been avoided. As for your last bit, at least one person here seems to factually believe that I'm a despicable person regardless of how many times I've tried to explain it. I might even lean to you believing it too as often as you bring it up.

 

I bring it up so frequently because you have a tendency to voice strong negative reactions to things people like Limbaugh or Joseph Epstein say or write, which seems incongruous to me.

 

Simple question for you. Did the use of a picture of a Nazi and the use of a rainbow/Confederate flag with swastikas on it rise to the same level of potential despicableness as years of very negative comments and opinions, often making fun of dead people?

 

Simple answer for you. The avatar and the flag struck me as going out of your way to offend someone, for no discernible reason. You say you did it to see what type of reaction you'd get. I've asked you this before but you didn't answer. I assume you didn't want people to react without conveying the reaction to you. Ideally, what was the reaction you were hoping for? I can't imagine that something a talk show host said about a celebrity would ever strike the same chord. I've made this point before. There's a difference between PC and simple courtesy.

 

I hope you're joking about including "making fun of dead people," as a negative here.

[Fordgalaxy]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

 

Saying someone is a "terrible" person is your opinion, not a fact. Did you not know that? I suspect it would not be uncommon to learn that some believe that using Nazi imagery purportedly to see how it makes people react is despicable. That's also an opinion. Neither of those is a fact.

 

This is but one reason why message board postings are often so frustrating. I was talking about what he said as opinion, and you were talking about what I said. Most of this could have been avoided. As for your last bit, at least one person here seems to factually believe that I'm a despicable person regardless of how many times I've tried to explain it. I might even lean to you believing it too as often as you bring it up.

 

I bring it up so frequently because you have a tendency to voice strong negative reactions to things people like Limbaugh or Joseph Epstein say or write, which seems incongruous to me.

 

Simple question for you. Did the use of a picture of a Nazi and the use of a rainbow/Confederate flag with swastikas on it rise to the same level of potential despicableness as years of very negative comments and opinions, often making fun of dead people?

 

Simple answer for you. The avatar and the flag struck me as going out of your way to offend someone, for no discernible reason. You say you did it to see what type of reaction you'd get. I've asked you this before but you didn't answer. I assume you didn't want people to react without conveying the reaction to you. Ideally, what was the reaction you were hoping for? I can't imagine that something a talk show host said about a celebrity would ever strike the same chord. I've made this point before. There's a difference between PC and simple courtesy.

 

I hope you're joking about including "making fun of dead people," as a negative here.

 

Honestly, I don't know that I had a specific reaction in mind. I figured some would wonder why I used that. Some might be offended, especially if they were Jewish or had Jewish people in their famliy/history, but as I've said a few times, I never expected anyone to be so offended as to then equate me with a Nazi or at least almost so. Then again, I don't get offended and maybe I expect others to be the same, which is apparently too much to ask.

 

But, some of the vitriol sent my way would likely have happened if I'd have used Mother Theresa as an avatar, imo, because some folks just aren't nice people.

[laughedatbytime]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

 

Saying someone is a "terrible" person is your opinion, not a fact. Did you not know that? I suspect it would not be uncommon to learn that some believe that using Nazi imagery purportedly to see how it makes people react is despicable. That's also an opinion. Neither of those is a fact.

 

This is but one reason why message board postings are often so frustrating. I was talking about what he said as opinion, and you were talking about what I said. Most of this could have been avoided. As for your last bit, at least one person here seems to factually believe that I'm a despicable person regardless of how many times I've tried to explain it. I might even lean to you believing it too as often as you bring it up.

 

I bring it up so frequently because you have a tendency to voice strong negative reactions to things people like Limbaugh or Joseph Epstein say or write, which seems incongruous to me.

 

Simple question for you. Did the use of a picture of a Nazi and the use of a rainbow/Confederate flag with swastikas on it rise to the same level of potential despicableness as years of very negative comments and opinions, often making fun of dead people?

 

Simple answer for you. The avatar and the flag struck me as going out of your way to offend someone, for no discernible reason. You say you did it to see what type of reaction you'd get. I've asked you this before but you didn't answer. I assume you didn't want people to react without conveying the reaction to you. Ideally, what was the reaction you were hoping for? I can't imagine that something a talk show host said about a celebrity would ever strike the same chord. I've made this point before. There's a difference between PC and simple courtesy.

 

I hope you're joking about including "making fun of dead people," as a negative here.

 

 

But, some of the vitriol sent my way would likely have happened if I'd have used Mother Theresa as an avatar, imo, because some folks just aren't nice people.

:rfl:

 

The funny part is that you actually believe that.

 

it WOULD be ironic though if you did use Mother Theresa as an avatar, considering your opinion of religion and religious people.

[Rick N. Backer]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

 

Saying someone is a "terrible" person is your opinion, not a fact. Did you not know that? I suspect it would not be uncommon to learn that some believe that using Nazi imagery purportedly to see how it makes people react is despicable. That's also an opinion. Neither of those is a fact.

 

This is but one reason why message board postings are often so frustrating. I was talking about what he said as opinion, and you were talking about what I said. Most of this could have been avoided. As for your last bit, at least one person here seems to factually believe that I'm a despicable person regardless of how many times I've tried to explain it. I might even lean to you believing it too as often as you bring it up.

 

I bring it up so frequently because you have a tendency to voice strong negative reactions to things people like Limbaugh or Joseph Epstein say or write, which seems incongruous to me.

 

Simple question for you. Did the use of a picture of a Nazi and the use of a rainbow/Confederate flag with swastikas on it rise to the same level of potential despicableness as years of very negative comments and opinions, often making fun of dead people?

 

Simple answer for you. The avatar and the flag struck me as going out of your way to offend someone, for no discernible reason. You say you did it to see what type of reaction you'd get. I've asked you this before but you didn't answer. I assume you didn't want people to react without conveying the reaction to you. Ideally, what was the reaction you were hoping for? I can't imagine that something a talk show host said about a celebrity would ever strike the same chord. I've made this point before. There's a difference between PC and simple courtesy.

 

I hope you're joking about including "making fun of dead people," as a negative here.

 

Honestly, I don't know that I had a specific reaction in mind. I figured some would wonder why I used that. Some might be offended, especially if they were Jewish or had Jewish people in their famliy/history, but as I've said a few times, I never expected anyone to be so offended as to then equate me with a Nazi or at least almost so. Then again, I don't get offended and maybe I expect others to be the same, which is apparently too much to ask.

 

But, some of the vitriol sent my way would likely have happened if I'd have used Mother Theresa as an avatar, imo, because some folks just aren't nice people.

 

If you don't get offended, why did you get so upset by Limbaugh and Epstein?