@DurangoDoug posted:Henry has more hate from within than any person I've ever known. What a clueless bastard. Attacking me for military service? Of course he was too chicken to ever serve, loser.
I really want to thank you for your service, but I don't like that you are weaponizing it. It cheapens it. However, you earned it so I can't tell you what to do with it.
@Blair Kiel posted:Full transparency.
When Rush came onto the scene, I was a traveling salesman who spent his days in the car—-he was “must listen” for right of center political discussions. On one of our first dates, I took Mrs. Kiel to the old Milwaukee Auditorium to see him on his “Rush to Excellence” Tour...Mrs. Kiel called him “Rush Lumphead”
He was non pc before pc became a thing, hence the somewhat out of context comments by him you’ve read. That said, as the years went on, he did become increasingly partisan, more nasty and less funny (like Glen Beck) and reveled in helping many non free thinkers hit the hate button.
I moved on from him by 2000 or so, so I can’t even comment on what his schtick had been the past 20 years, other than the occasional outrageous shit that he pulled off with regularity.
That said, he has probably been one of the top 10 influencers in politics over the past 30 years. He was quite a brand. Much like other unnamed (alleged) Republicans, somehow he attained a cult of personality, which is never a good thing, is it? (Unless it’s being an Elizabeth Hurley fan)
I used to listen to him religiously. I liked 90% of what he said. The 10% was so extreme though I felt he no longer represented me. I last listened some 20 years ago.
I think he was the No.1 influencer in our politics today. Because of him political discourse is nastier than at any time in the 20th century.
@Goalline posted:Florida Rob, conservative people support this? In that case I renounce my conservatism. You know it is not true, right? Lots of conservative folks denounced this piece of shit for what he did to our country. Because of people like him we have never been more divided.
I honestly believe that the majority of conservatives do not support what Rush said over the years. He did not represent many of the points of views that conservatives that I know believe in (Including myself). He was a blow hard that has given all conservatives a bad name even though we don't agree with him.
@Floridarob posted:FLPackfan. all media outlets fabricate stuff and not just Carlson and Hannity. We watched as the Cuomo brothers did their nightly comedy routine during the pandemic and made us all believe that things were being handled well in New York. I have to say I was impressed with Cuomo handling of the Pandemic at the time and thought Trump should take a lesson from him. And the damn left gave him some award for how he handled it. Now the muderer is under investigation for the way he handled it. And now his younger brother goes silent in response. Screw them all.
And you watch. Cuomo will pay for his lies when he is up for reelection. He is getting attacked by members of his own party for his disgusting behavior.
Meanwhile, Republicans keep rewarding politicians for their lies. That is exactly what FLAPackfan is referring to.
@The Heckler posted:I honestly believe that the majority of conservatives do not support what Rush said over the years. He did not represent many of the points of views that conservatives that I know believe in (Including myself). He was a blow hard that has given all conservatives a bad name even though we don't agree with him.
20 million listeners is a really small sampling of conservative listeners. I completely agree with you.
@Pikes Peak posted:By the way, Bob Dole looks to be in a bad way. I disagreed with just about all of what he proposed over the years. But he as far I know he was a fine man, veteran of a real war, well liked by all he worked with and a tough but fair political opponent.
He earned my respect and I hope all goes well for him.
Bob Dole is a great American.
This is actually a good thread not getting out of control.
Kudos!
No doubt RL definitely coarsened the political discourse in this country. Weaponized it.
I still think there's 70-80% of the country is closer to each other than they are to the 20-30% on the edges from both sides.
Unfortunately the DMZ line is spitting the 70-80% down the middle.
@Pikes Peak posted:I’m with you on the New York Gov, if he did something wrong, fabricated etc take him to court. I haven’t been closely following but what I think I know is he suggested, allowed or ordered (take your pick) that when COVID patients were ready to be released they be released to nursing homes, right? Then this decision caused the alleged fabrication, lying, threatening etc.
My question, where else were they to be released to?
Cuomo screwed up on this. The buck stops with him, but many jurisdictions are under heavy pressure to get hospital patients back to nursing homes because of how health care and elder care is financed in this country.
Many nursing homes barely break even taking care of relatively healthy residents in their facilities. They get paid something like triple the amount of the daily rate for taking care of more acutely ill patients. The justification is that it still saves health care costs for Medicare relative to being an inpatient in a hospital. The problem is that the nursing homes are dependent on those extra dollars to stay solvent (if they are non-profits) or to make money (if they are for-profit). They were pushing to get their revenue streams back online and to have those patients released back to their care.
The nursing homes were hemorrhaging money from the extra costs associated with the pandemic, the hospitals were overrun and needed the beds, and the federal government wasn't very good at providing guidelines on how to handle what was an unprecedented situation. All the incentives were aligned to discharge these patients back to the nursing homes.
Cuomo screwed up in the beginning by going with that approach (although it was probably the approach anyone was going to choose amongst a bunch of bad options). If he'd have just said they screwed up and explained why, he'd have been much better off. It's the coverup that's worse.
@Floridarob posted:i would not have a problem with a new government set up. The problem now is the polarizing extremes of the existing parties. There is no middle ground. It is sick to see the McConnels, Pelosis, Bidens, Schumers, and others getting rich just because they can get a segment of their parties to lean and vote a certain way. They represent themselves and their greed not the majority of the people. It will not change in my or even my grand kids life time....
That's why it needs to die. That's why people need to quit listening to fucks like Limbaugh who will defend a busted ass 18th century government. It wasn't set up to represent a modern society. The same goes for the Neera Tandens who prop up the neo-liberal turds on the supposed left who like to parcel out programs instead of solutions.
@Goalline posted:And you watch. Cuomo will pay for his lies when he is up for reelection. He is getting attacked by members of his own party for his disgusting behavior.
Meanwhile, Republicans keep rewarding politicians for their lies. That is exactly what FLAPackfan is referring to.
Goaline, they all lie and they are all hypocties. Pelosi, Schumer, Lyndsey Graham, McConell, AOC, the wacko Omar from Minnesota, Cuomo, Newsome, Chicago Mayor, and the list goes on. They are all scandalous. This is not limited to the Republican Party. Republicans just lost the presidency and the senate. I dont see how they got rewared.
@DurangoDoug posted:Henry has more hate from within than any person I've ever known. What a clueless bastard. Attacking me for military service? Of course he was too chicken to ever serve, loser.
Except you don't know Henry. None of us do. I think Kiel is the only one to have the pleasure of getting to know Henry.
Is pleasure the right adjective?
It's easy to make fun of Rush Limbaugh right now, but it's important to remember that he also brought a lot of people a lot of joy by dying
— Mike Drucker (@MikeDrucker) February 17, 2021
@H5 posted:Except you don't know Henry. None of us do. I think Kiel is the only one to have the pleasure of getting to know Henry.
Is pleasure the right adjective?
Kiel deserves an extra crown when he gets to Heaven...
You have no idea what Kiel deserves. That is reserved for Mrs Kiel.
@H5 posted:You have no idea what Kiel deserves. That is reserved for Mrs Kiel.
He took her to a RL lecture.....enough said.
@H5 posted:You have no idea what Kiel deserves. That is reserved for Mrs Kiel.
she deserves the whole jewelry section and ownership of the manufacturer who makes the crowns....
@Floridarob posted:Goaline, they all lie and they are all hypocties. Pelosi, Schumer, Lyndsey Graham, McConell, AOC, the wacko Omar from Minnesota, Cuomo, Newsome, Chicago Mayor, and the list goes on. They are all scandalous. This is not limited to the Republican Party. Republicans just lost the presidency and the senate. I dont see how they got rewared.
That's a cheap out. You throw out a bunch of names you don't like and pepper in a couple of Republicans as some catch all.
There are people in office actually working for betterment but people shirk their duty as voters.
Me, I actually loathe Clintonites.
For the record, I also stopped listening to or caring about Limbaugh roughly 20 years ago. So in no way was I a fan or supporter of him since. But he was very influential to a large section of the population and should be recognized as such. Personally I lean towards the moderate side on most issues. If on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being extreme liberal and 10 being extreme conservative I'm around a 6 on that scale.
@Henry posted:That's a cheap out. You throw out a bunch of names you don't like and pepper in a couple of Republicans as some catch all.
There are people in office actually working for betterment but people shirk their duty as voters.
Me, I actually loathe Clintonites.
lol, No, I threw out the names that are mostly known by democrats and republicans. I am sure there are others. I actually can't think of any democrats or Republican congress people I like. They are all a bunch of crooks looking to line their own pockets. Is that inclusive enough?
@H5 posted:Except you don't know Henry. None of us do. I think Kiel is the only one to have the pleasure of getting to know Henry.
Is pleasure the right adjective?
Henry and me knowing each other (dinner 5-6 times I'd guess) is precisely why we shouldn't ever assume we really know someone from on line communication. Hard to believe, but in person, I'm the asshole and he's a prince.
@Floridarob posted:Goaline, they all lie and they are all hypocties. Pelosi, Schumer, Lyndsey Graham, McConell, AOC, the wacko Omar from Minnesota, Cuomo, Newsome, Chicago Mayor, and the list goes on. They are all scandalous. This is not limited to the Republican Party. Republicans just lost the presidency and the senate. I dont see how they got rewared.
No doubt! No disagreement there. Politicians disgust me.
@Floridarob posted:well lets just say we dont see his life the same way. Rage all you want. I doubt you spent five minutes ever listening to him.
And no I am not scared of rhetoric. I just dont want a bunch of wackos out in my front yard confronting my wife and family because they know I dont support their views of ILLEGAL immigrants, transgender women running in events against naturally born females, and a myriad of other beliefs that I am against.
Yeah, pretty sure nobody is coming to your house.
I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.
@EC Pack posted:This is actually a good thread not getting out of control.
Kudos!
No doubt RL definitely coarsened the political discourse in this country. Weaponized it.
I still think there's 70-80% of the country is closer to each other than they are to the 20-30% on the edges from both sides.
Unfortunately the DMZ line is spitting the 70-80% down the middle.
A clear majority of the country supports some form of gun control (even 49% of Republicans) without wanting to ban guns. McConnell has blocked even a debate in the Senate on anything related to guns.
Large majorities of the country want common-sense immigration reform. A bipartisan plan that passed the senate with 68 votes was negotiated in 2013. Rubio and Lindsay Graham were two of the 8 that developed this plan. Boehner blocked it from being voted on in the House.
A majority of the country supports raising the minimum wage. Even some congressional Republicans support it. Part of the problem with the discussion is the far left wing is set on $15/hour or nothing. Why not try to get bipartisan support to get to $11 or $12/hour?
I don't think anybody thinks health care works efficiently in the United States.
The underlying problem with doing anything is twofold. First, the media polarization and demonization of opponents that Limbaugh pioneered and Roger Ailes perfected. Second, the Citizen's United decision that ruled McCain-Feingold unconstitutional.
As soon as anyone tries to do anything that would involve compromising with the opposition so that you get something you want in exchange for something they want, the dark money floods in and whips up a frenzy driven in large part by partisan media (who are often heaving supported by unregulated super-PAC ads in a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop). Republicans trying to compromise are labeled RINOs and Democrats trying to do so are labeled corporate sellouts.
It results in bright, talented people eventually taking positions that don't make any sense. Rubio and Graham at one point were lead architects of a bill that would have at least tried to fix some aspects of immigration. It wasn't perfect but it was a clear attempt to address an obvious problem. That's what functional governments should do. Now, they have both morphed into positions that are unrecognizable within the span of a few years. Obama based health care reform on a program that Romney pioneered as governor of Massachusetts. Rather than to take what should have been a conceptual win for Republicans at some level, they cranked up the outrage meter and had people convinced Obama wanted to kill people off with death panels. Then, in one of the most ironic presidential campaigns in history, Romney had to run a presidential campaign while disavowing his signature policy accomplishment as a governor.
I read an interesting article a couple of years ago that argued that the push for more government transparency, while mostly beneficial to try to expose corruption and influence, is counterproductive in getting meaningful legislation with compromises passed. That's because while negotiations are going on out in the open, both sides get hammered to hold their position and not compromise (instead of, for example, just coming out with a bill for a 12/hour minimum wage without getting people completely dug in before discussions at 15/hour or no increase and regarding anything else as a loss).
@Henry posted:Yeah, pretty sure nobody is coming to your house.
Probably not, But the thugs that assault people now are just as happy to do it in front of police officers, at restaurants, on camera, in parks, and with the world watching. I am not planning on giving anyone a misguided reason because of whatever cause they have attached themselves to at that moment.
@Blair Kiel posted:Henry and me knowing each other (dinner 5-6 times I'd guess) is precisely why we shouldn't ever assume we really know someone from on line communication. Hard to believe, but in person, I'm the asshole and he's a prince.
Don't let Kiel fool you. He really is an asshole.
Honestly, Kiel and I aren't from unidentifiable worlds but we do reside in different strata. I think what I enjoy about Kiel is there is a true sense of open engagement. Maybe it's the sales guy that makes Kiel accessible but I always thought it was being a genuine, reasonable individual instead.
In the end, it's always about humor. As much as I rage I'll take a joke to end the conversation every time.
@MichiganPacker2 posted:I read an interesting article a couple of years ago that argued that the push for more government transparency, while mostly beneficial to try to expose corruption and influence, is counterproductive in getting meaningful legislation with compromises passed. That's because while negotiations are going on out in the open, both sides get hammered to hold their position and not compromise (instead of, for example, just coming out with a bill for a 12/hour minimum wage without getting people completely dug in before discussions at 15/hour or no increase and regarding anything else as a loss).
Laws and sausages.
@Floridarob posted:Probably not, But the thugs that assault people now are just as happy to do it in front of police officers, at restaurants, on camera, in parks, and with the world watching. I am not planning on giving anyone a misguided reason because of whatever cause they have attached themselves to at that moment.
It's almost like we should address the root of extremism.
Neither side wants to be known as working with the other. Votes in the senate and house now are straight up partisan. If they do work with the other side, they are liable to be censurred, voted out, or slandered in the news....Maybe making the major legislation votes anonymous would get things done.
Not the worst idea. Everyone can claim they voted for it if the legislation is good.
Just like there were 600,000 people at the Ice Bowl. 
@EC Pack posted:Not the worst idea. Everyone can claim they voted for it if the legislation is good.
Just like there were 600,000 people at the Ice Bowl.
The two tickets that my extended family has (at least partially) had for 60 years were being used for the Ice Bowl by one of my father's cousins. He and his buddy left at halftime and went to a bar down the street from Lambeau Field because he said it was just too fuc1ing cold to sit outside.
@Blair Kiel posted:Hard to believe, but in person, I'm the asshole and he's a prince.
You were a keeper, makes sense.
@Floridarob posted:Neither side wants to be known as working with the other. Votes in the senate and house now are straight up partisan. If they do work with the other side, they are liable to be censurred, voted out, or slandered in the news....Maybe making the major legislation votes anonymous would get things done.
I think they should have to own their vote, but I agree, partisanship doesn’t happen anymore.
also I don’t believe in term limits, but there is a shit ton that should be voted out
(also morE oversight. Our last president shined a spotlight on how you can use public service for personal gain.)
Most folks love term limits for your reps.
I don’t have a problem with it either, but we the people can make term limits and we don’t
What is the argument against term limits? I would think they would tend to encourage "public service" rather than making a career out of it.
Because when you have good ones....
Never mind, I invalidated my own argument
My last 2 Reps......Michelle Bachman and Doug Lamborn.
Believe me, I’m for it.
@FLPACKER posted:What is the argument against term limits? I would think they would tend to encourage "public service" rather than making a career out of it.
I've done some advocating for medical research funding at both the state and federal levels, so I've had some first-hand experience with this.
The Michigan house has 6-year term limits. People on the Republican side often get there by bashing government and working to cut spending and taxes. People on the Democratic side often get there by making unrealistic campaign promises. They have no idea how the legislative process works when they get there because campaigns, even locally, tend to be won with style over substance and people don't value competence as much as "fire" and looking for someone "who will fight for them." The new people get there and have no idea of things really work and spend most of their first two years trying to figure it out. They then start running again within 15 months for the next cycle which takes up a lot of their time. If they get to their 3rd term, they start looking for their next job which often ends up being with some group they can help out policy wise during their last term. The result of this is that the people that get elected are the least suited for the boring work of actually legislating (which at its best requires compromise and a lot of boring grunt work) and they have to rely on someone else to learn the ropes. By the time they figure it out, they are term limited. Most often who they rely on to actually do the work are the people who cycle between working in congressional offices and lobbying. Guess who ends up being the main people writing the laws and shaping them? The lobbyists/staff members who often spend decades there. In the end, term limits give these lobbyists even more power.
At the federal level, a story that captures the problems in this country is the following: I became friends with a prominent local Republican county commissioner who also was a lobbyist to get federal grant money for economic development programs in West MIchigan. During the late 1990s he spent a lot of time in DC interacting with the two Michigan senators who at that time were Spence Abraham (R) and Carl Levin (D). I asked him what they were like. He told me that Abraham didn't seem that interested in actually being a Senator and wasn't a great person to talk to about their needs. Abraham eventually being Energy Secretary and now is a wealthy man due to lobbying for nuclear energy interests. Being a Senator was a way to leverage connections to eventually become wealthy. On the other hand, he said that Carl Levin was one of the most effective and genuine politicians he ever talked to. Levin told him that he knew that he was a Republican and probably didn't vote for him, but that it was his job to represent the interests of his constituents and he'd go out of his way to meet with him and told him he'd help him out in any manner he could.
So, at the end of the conversation, I asked my colleague, "would you ever consider voting for Levin." He said he could never do that, because he considered it voting for someone on the other team. He was a Lions fan and I'm paraphrasing his analogy which was that he could respect Brett Favre (this was the late 1990s), but he would never want him to win because that wouldn't help the Lions.
