Giuliani reveals under oath no evidence for stolen election.

[honorentheos]

I think we agree on the subjects and consequences of Rush Limbaugh having found and despoiled a platform that has bent human history in negative directions. Perhaps to me that is the distance to be travelled and going further takes us past the mark of useful examination of the impact of his life.

Perhaps part of my reluctance to define him as one of the most evil humans to have lived is that I don't know how much Limbaugh was author of this turn in American history. I don't subscribe to the great man theory of history so much as believe history is the result of many factors, one of which includes the chance involved in one individual of many available candidates seizing the opportunities of a moment that does put their unique imprint on the time. Was Hitler inevitable? No. Someone like him probably was, though. Was the Holocaust inevitable? No. The Holocaust was an extreme of the many possible manifestations that were contained in the the anti-Semitism and anti-Communism sentiments that were present in not just Europe but the US and throughout the globe.

The probability range has limits and in our examples of the Nazis maybe we ran up against one of the far ends. But it wasn't all because Hitler was born and going back in time to kill him as a baby would make the world better somehow.

In that sense, while Rush himself wasn't inevitable I think the culture wars and anti-liberal background that he arose out of would have elevated someone to that position and their message would have likely been similar. The Republican party turned to the moral majority and the old South to broaden it's coalition, built on the belief that government was the problem more than a source for solutions, and freedom was being assaulted by progressive and liberal politics. It simplified and personalized the appeal of this by beating the drum incessantly that taxing individuals to pay for <something one doesn't want to pay for that government does> was a moral injustice. Listen to Ronald Reagan's speech from 1964. https://youtu.be/qXBswFfh6AY

"There's no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down..."

The anti-taxation chant is the original beat and the one the cult of conservatism falls back on to this very day. They always go to this as their bedrock and it is as old of an argument as exists in modern politics.

Rush grew from the soil prepared in the era of Goldwater. But Goldwater didn't create the context from which he arose, either.

Rush caused incredible harm and I agree he was worthy of being called evil. I would prefer to debate the details, though, and not the labels.

[honorentheos]

I should say I tend to feel similarly about the loss of intellectual argument from the left in favor of similar memic viral politics. I'm not a fan of the progressive movement among Democrats largely because of the increasing distaste for the past it embraces combined with voodoo economic policies.

Oddly, I think this review of the film, The Best of Enemies about William F. Buckley Jr., and Gore Vidal captures both the germ of our modern political discourse as well as it's relative poverty given it has declined from being competing political theories into a war of impoverished minds profiting off of scoring points rather than leading.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ry-121673/

I don't know. Anyway, details matter to me more than labels is the point. Including the labels of conservative or liberal.

[honorentheos]

Populism is another label that would be good to move off of and into the details of what is meant. Elites versus populists isn't particularly better because a person loads both terms with meaning that doesn't get us closer to clarity.

For example, if we talk about global elites I personally associate it with people who use offshore tax havens and international protections to hide their wealth from taxation or other interests such as global criminal courts. Trump and his family are global elites. When I hear someone speak a out populists I think of people who feel like they are being taken advantage of by whatever state or system they view as oppressing them...but they lack the wherewithall to form a coherent political identity that is productive and based on viable political-economic theory. Populism is ignorance manefest as mob outrage. That's not great or admirable. And a global elitist being able to plant himself at the front of that mob? (well, actually he's pretty good at hiding safely behind it but you know what I mean...) How much more of a symbol of that ignorance could there be?

Others often seem to lump "experts" under elitists as a pejorative yet that seems idiotic to me. Knowledge is earned, and becoming an expert is earned. Though I think too many people like to use their expertise in a particular field or area as social currency which I do agree is idiocy on their parts. Again, labels are not valuable for debate. Details matter instead.

[Physics Guy]

I think the main reason for the size of the right-wing rebellion movement in the US is just that this group has always been a big part of the American mainstream. It's no recent anomaly.

The country itself began as a tax revolt. It was settled by people who would rather risk starving than let anyone tell them what to do. The self-styled "patriots" who scour the internet for Q drops see themselves as the good old-fashioned kind of American citizens. This might be the one thing about which they're right.

The United States of America has always been advanced and primitive at the same time. Lasers in the jungle; moonshots and moonbats; the nuclear navy and the backwoods militias. The internet and ... the internet.

If anything new is happening now, I don't think it's a hijacking. It seems more inherent than that. Hold the tail of a tiger for long enough, it eventually slips.

[honorentheos]

The elite are making a mistake to push their luck and try and get more people to care, because sooner or later, if good people start to care, they will care a lot and they will “F” something up when they do.

Who are these elite of whom you speak?

ETA: What makes the other group you identify above, "good" as well who currently do not "care" but once they do, they will "“F” (things) up"? The implications really call your definition of good into question, to be frank.

[canpakes]

The elites are the power brokers that malign those that are just getting by and living. This may be in the form of legislation, taxation, greed through capitalism or just the dumbass propaganda that is used to insult huge swaths of the population.

That brings us right back to the example of Rush, and his still-living contemporaries on talk radio and editorialized cable ‘news’.

[Some Schmo]

Why are you so adamantly arguing on Limbaugh's behalf

I wasn't arguing on Limbaugh's behalf - I was challenging the statements that Limbaugh was one of the most evil people to have lived and that Limbaugh was being compared to Bundy/Hitler.

Well, by challenging those statements, you end up inadvertently arguing on Limbaugh's behalf without knowing much of what he said on his show.

I would have said the same for any talk radio show person - like Howard Stern or Bill Maher - My opinion is that Stern/Maher are complete idiots but I would never, not in a million years, suggest that Stern/Maher were one of the most evil people to have lived - Nor would I compare Stern or Maher to Hitler/Bundy - Because that would also be insane to do such a thing.

I'm curious why you think talk show hosts are immune from being among the most evil people ever.

I don't think Hitler did a lot of murdering personally. It's what he said and got others to do that made him such an asshole. People who influence others to think/do bad crap are just as bad as the people thinking/doing bad crap.

Truth be told, I think what is happening on this thread, as is the case on many threads, is that this is all about politics/ideologies (Rush was on the right) because if it wasn't all just about politics/ideologies, we might expect to actually see a bit of balance - at least some level of push back from anyone other than me - a hint that would suggest that disgusting, divisive and bigoted things have been said - are currently said - and probably will continue to be said from all kinds of people from all over the political spectrum.

That's a reasonable assumption, unless Limbaugh really was an asshole. If he was an asshole, being balanced would require anyone to say he was an asshole. Not calling him an asshole would reveal someone's bias.

I listened to him back when I considered myself a Republican, and even then, I thought he was an asshole and dumb as a rock. It wasn't long before I quit listening.

if you haven't heard much of what he's said?

I know he was a very popular conservative talk show host and I know that when he died, this board had a thread that was celebrating his death (I also remember making a single post in said thread that expressed my personal opinion about the parade and celebration that was taking place.

I suspect you were the only one because everyone else who spoke up had actually heard the garbage he'd spewed.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Proof #3,096 that Conservatives don’t read. Ceeboo had plenty of opportunities to get smart on what Limbaugh preached on the thread, but of course chose not to read.

https://www.discussmormonism.com/viewto ... ugh#p13918

Second chance to get smart on a topic you’re opining on, friend.

eta: Limbaugh used his life’s last energies to reframe a pandemic as a deadly, partisan culture war. He painted a lawless and lunatic President as a wronged and heroic savior of the Republic, the symbol of all the wrongs done to America by Dems or the Left. He called the first Indian-American (or Black woman depending how she’s being cast) nominated for VP a “ho” and a “mattress,” depicted BLM as Armageddon , and fomented hysteria about a Democratic plot to steal the election. He ultimately led the cheers as Republicans turned against democracy itself.

Not that any of that would make once damned dent in a Conservative’s skull.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

Thanks for the refresher, Cam. I guess I have to un-pat myself on the back because I didn't make any celebratory comments, except for noting Ajax's inconsistency in complaining about energy.

[ceeboo]

Proof #3,096 that Conservatives don’t read. Ceeboo had plenty of opportunities to get smart on what Limbaugh preached on the thread, but of course chose not to read.

From a thread that Cam himself participated in and made several posts:

Question to Ceeboo -By the way, did you see the article I linked to, and do you better understand why I uniquely singled out Rush as the most likely influence for A-Mike's opinions on climate change? Not that you have to agree -- but do you see why I pointed to Rush, and not Pelosi or Trump or others?

Ceeboo's reply - Yes, I saw the article (as well as others that were posted on the board) and yes, I now see why you specifically chose Rush as it relates to the discussion about climate change.

Proof #8,986,723 that Cam struggles with reason, common sense, and basic thought.