Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Monday, March 22, 2010

"Baby Killer" is what now passes for civil discourse.

I was going to finally get around to doing that elementray course on Keyensian economics when I ran accross THIS BULLSHIT.  So Keyenes will have to wait.  First I HAVE to deal with these funny-mentalist, anti-aboprtion, pro-"life" (pro-DEATH really, and I'll explain why) anti-abortion fucks.  I am sick and tired of the lying, right-wing, hypocritcial, uber-christian BASTADRDS.  And they have now elevated themselves, officially, to the status of "MURDERERS."  Here why...

No one, and I do me NO ONE - not Glenn Beck (because he's an idiot) and not ClassicLiberal (to give the opposite example - liberal and well-infomred) can deny that this health care bill will SAVE LIVES.  And I've said many times now that Classic is absolutely right on his FACTS, (unlike the Glenn  Beck crowd.)  And I hope that everyone read what he had to say, because it IS important. But for every flaw he's found, I'm sure even he would have to admit that, relative to the STATUS QUO, this bill will SAVE LIVES.  And it does so by elimintating the PREEXSISTING CONDITIONS.  I know, I know... not soon enough, 'kids only' for the next four years, $100 a day fine, yeah, yeah... Like I said, 'If you want the flaws, READ HIS BLOG.'  Good points all. And I don't claim it's perfect. But I'm not comparing it to what MIGHT HAVE BEEN.  Compared to WHAT WE HAVE NOW, this bill will SAVE LIVES.  How many?  Well, Harvard says 40,000 die every year from lack of coverage, but this bill doesn't cover everyone, so I don't like that number.   But potentially, it's every Cancer, Aids, Diabetes, Lupus, Transplant, etc... patient that ever changes jobs, loses their job, has their policy cancelled or wants to find a new policy.  Because, in each case, if you are denied medicine, you start DYING.  And if you're denied insurance you're denied medicine. (These thigns are EXPENSIVE.  I know Ruch Limbugh thinks that every pulls down AM Radio Talk Show Host money, but that just ain't the case!)  And if that medicine comes too late, you either DIE SOONER, or you live with whatever complications arose while you waited for that medicine.  So, bottom line... if you claim to value LIFE, you MUST. MUST. MUST. Support this bill on those grounds.  Whatever flaws it may have, long term, it gets rid of preexisting condition.  And THAT will SAVE LIVES.

So I find it ironic that some of the loudest opponents of this bill are actually people who call themselves "PRO-LIFE." Now... Let's take a look at their logic: Right now there are X number of Cancer, Aids, Diabetes, Lupus, Transplant, etc... patients - actual, grown, living Amercian Citizens - who are DYING, RIGHT NOW for lack of medical care and medicine simply because they are being denied coverage by their insurance companies (or being cancelled outright) for no other reason than... THEY'RE SICK.    BUT... according to these psychopathic Right-Wingers, we CAN'T extend coverage to them, or guarentee the coverage they're PAYING FOR, because doing so MIGHT mean that SOMEONE ELSE might ONE DAY have an abortion.  That's right: The PRO-LIFE position is to let thousands of ACTUAL, LIVING PEOPLE DIE because they're might be a slight uptick in the number of abortions that happen.  (Note: Passage or non-passage of this bill will have NO impact, whatsoever, on the millions of abortions that happen every year anyway.)

Well... seeing as how abortion is LEGAL, I think there a word or two that would describe someone who would sacrifice thousands of people over an essentially unrelated political point.  Personally, I think  MURDERER says it best.

So we have DEATH PANELS, folks.  But they're not in this bill.  They're in the boardrooms of the insurance companies and the in the form of every politician who opposes this bill on any grounds not covered over on Left Hook.  And since I support the death penalty - rare, for a liberal, but I DO - I can say right now, that I honestly believe that any politican who opposes this bill on ANTI-ABORTION grounds deserves to HUNG BY HIS NECK UNTIL HE BE DEAD, unless he is arguing for a better system. (Kuchinich, under this clause, gets a pass.)

And don't be overly concered for them: Most of these same 'pro-lifers' fully support the Death Penalty.  So fine: Let's give it to them.  The blood of every person who would die from lack of coverage, due to prexsisting condition is on their hands, should they chose to deny them on "pro-life" grounds.  Saying "No" to a cancer patient because helping them MIGHT lead to someone else possibly having an abortion at some point in the future is MADNESS. Or, more clearly: It's MURDER. 

There are reasons to oppose this bill.  I don't oppose it, personally, but I DO acknowledge the legitimate concerns that are out there.  ABORTION is not one of them.  GROW UP, you stupid fucks: It's a LEGAL PROCEDURE.  That you've been unable to change the law is not a legitimate reason to KILL EVERYONE WHO THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY DEEMS TOO EXPENSIVE TO SAVE.  The PRO-LIFE lobby has now MADE THEMSELVES into the de facto DEATH PANEL. 

They must be so proud.

And besdies... we all know that the Republcians don't REALLY want to outlaw abortion.  If they did? What reason would all that white trash then have to keep voting for them? (Well Gay Marriage, maybe, but I digress.)  Without the abortion wedge, people might start voting in their economic interests again, and that's the LAST THING the Republicans want!


  1. I don't know if I'd characterize my own point of view as a disagreement with yours or not. Let me see if I can lay it out:

    The bill is almost certain to save some lives. I'm very skeptical about any largescale life-saving emerging from it. My best guess is that it will have a negligible, at best, impact on deaths. Most of those with serious and ongoing conditions are going to be no better off than they were before, because it's cheaper for the insurance companies to pay the fines than it is to cover them, and the bill still allows them to be cut off without a cent if the company decides they've misrepresented anything (insurance company charges of "misrepresentation" or "fraud" are just absurdist "interpretations" designed to deny payment for coverage when the payment is expensive). Those death panels in the corporate boardrooms are real, and will continue under this law. At the same time, those who get insurance are often going to be carrying minimal policies that don't really cover anything--if they get sick or injured, they're just as screwed as they were without any coverage. And, of course, those at the bottom, like myself at present, can't afford insurance, so we'll just end up paying a more-cost-effective tax fine, and when we get in a jam, we're just as screwed, as well.

    I think the bill will probably save lives, but I think the effect on deaths will be minimal.

    Is it likely to be enough of an effect to justify roasting the "pro-life" crowd over this? I suppose everyone will have to decide for themselves. If the "pro-life" crowd was, as a crowd, a supporter of real reform, they'd have a great counter-argument: Real reform would save LOTS more lives. As a rule, though, they definitely aren't reformers.

    Personally, I don't think the minimal number of lives I suspect will be saved by the bill justified, in any way, its passage. It wouldn't come close to outweighing the damage done by the bill. Real reform, which would save most of those lives that are savable, will be made all but impossible by this law.

    Abortion definitely isn't one of the reasons to oppose the bill. On the other hand, if the Stupid-pak language had been a part of the bill, that would have been just another reason to drive a stake through its heart. (Yes, I childishly write the word "Stupid-pak," there--it addresses the congressman on his own level)

  2. Well, I do realize that we disagree on our judegemnt of the bill. And that's fine. I still don't deny any of the facts or concerns you raise. That ebing said, Thank YOU for acknowledging that the bill IS in fact still life-positive, even if it is questionable to the extent. And again, I WILL grant you: it's questionable. But as compared to the STATUS QUO, there will be people alive years from now who otherwise would not be, because preexisting conditions will eventually be pagsed out.

    And I'm not cool on Stupak either, nor am I cool about the President's executive order, at least as I understand it. That PRIVATE INSURANCE companies would be forced to deny arbotion coverage in order to sell on the exhcange? Absurd. It's a god-damned LEGAL, MEDICAL procedure! So yeah, as you said, ONE MORE FLAW. (First thing they should have done was to repeal the Hyde ammendment, but... LOL, yeah, like THAT will ever happen!) I'm still glad it passed, though I'll be the first to admit that it's only the beginning, and there's a lot of work left to be done. (Whatever. We disagree. And that's cool. It's bound to happen. Makes this whole silly excercise worthwhile to find people who know what's what, and you can still debate with.)

    But the very idea that someone could look a dying man, who can be saved by no more than health insurance, in the eye and say, "Sorry, but if we cover you, then someone might have an abortion somday, so... we're just going to have to let you die." is absolutley abhorant. I cannot value the life of one who can think that way.

    Now YOUR position? That's something I can understand. That's a position I can respect, even if I don't share the end conclusion. Because YOU have your facts strait, and you argue from a FAR more principled position.

    So there ARE, very valid reasons to oppose this.

    And as much as we disagree overall on this, I'm encouraged to see that we essentially agree that ANTI-ABORTIONISM just isn't one of them.

  3. The executive order just restates the Hyde Amendment restrictions, maintaining the status quo that has existed for decades. This is what the original language in the health care bill did. It said the federal subsidies offered to pay for health care can't be used for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the woman's life. People can still buy abortion coverage in their insurance plans, as long as none of the federal money went toward it, and the bill set up a simple means of segregating funds.

    Stupak was against this. He was insisting on language that, instead, would have disallowed any company taking part in the exchange--meaning all of them--from even offering abortion coverage. A woman couldn't have even spent her own money to get such coverage.

    In the end, Obama offered the executive order solely as a way for Stupak to publicly save face (and he got nothing out of it except that). It just carries over the Hyde Amendment restrictions, the very approach Stupak had fought for so long, and which the Democrats had been trying to pass from the beginning.

  4. I am an unabashed evangelical Christian, just completely in love with my Lord. I am pro life. I am also liberal.....that's right... bleeding heart, left wing, anti school prayer, pro-science, pro public option, pro union, anti death penalty, Alan Grayson/Rachel Maddow loving liberal. Holding up this bill over a wedge issue like abortion was despicable although I have to admit I think Stupak redeemed himself to some extent with this "baby killer" interrupted speech. I wanted this bill to pass..not because it is perfect but because it is a step in the right direction and also because in the most un-Christian way imaginable, I wanted to see GOP heads explode. The pro lifers on the "right"(and I mean conservative and not correct) side of the aisle would do well to support better healthcare, education, and birth control which will in turn minimize abortions. And I think all the hypocrites over there also need to be as rabidly against the death penalty but that probably wont happen. The sanctimonious defense of life that does not include compassion for the condemned, the sick, the poor and the less fortunate in society is hollow, cynical, hypocritical, and mean-spirited, if not down right evil. I went a long long time that I would not admit to being a Christian because the public face of Christianity was one of cruelty, condemnation and deceit. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were evangelicals. The Pharisees were fundamentalists. I cant help but think these rabid dogs would be the ones shouting "crucify him" the loudest.