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. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

10-Point Scale of Conservtaive Illogic

There were several items on MMFA today that motivated me to revisit one of the more popular pieces I've written.  Of course, brevity being the soul of wit I went and decided to make the new version two and a half times as long as the original.  LOL.  We'll see how it fares.  Please let me know what you think. :)




Level One (Megyn Kelly):


Person A is arguing a Conservative point. Person B is refuting it with facts, logic and reason.

The Liberal concludes that person A is wrong.

The Conservative concludes that person B is Liberal.



Level Two (Gretchen Carlson):

Person A makes a factual misstatement in their argument. Person B points this out.

Since the argument was predicated on a falsehood, the Liberal concludes that the Person A is wrong.

Since the argument is being refuted by a Liberal, the Conservative concludes that person B is wrong.


Level Three (Brian Kilmeade):

Person A makes a statement in their argument that they know to be false.

The Liberal concludes that, since they have knowingly made a false statement, Person A being dishonest.

The Conservative concludes that, since they are Liberal, Person B is being dishonest.


Level Four (Steve Doocy):

Person A makes a statement in their arguments which is directly refuted and disproved by scientific evidence and research - which is brought up by person B.

The Liberal concludes that, since the Conservative argument is refuted by science, the Conservative argument must be wrong.

The Conservative concludes that, since the Conservative argument is refuted by science, science must be wrong.


Level Five (Bill O’Rielly):

Person A makes a statement in their argument that is refuted by well-respected Academics in the relevant field. (Economists, Climatologists, Historians, etc…)

The Liberal starts to think that Person A should have paid more attention in school.

The Conservative starts  to wonders if they should consider home-schooling their children.


Level Six (Karl Rove): (thanks, Bob!)

In trying to give an example where their argument would apply, person A reference a television program, movie or other fictitious work. Person B points out that this example is based purely in fiction.

The Liberal laughs, thinking that Person B just made Person A look like a complete fool.

The Conservative nods, thinking Person B just proved Person A’s point.


Level Seven (Newt Gingrich):

Person A strongly advocates for the Republicans doing something that he just got finished vehemently condemning the Democrats for doing.

The Liberal concludes that Person A is a hypocrite.

The Conservative concludes that Person A is principled.


Level Eight (Sean Hannity):

When Person B tried to point out the previous “inconsistency” on the part of Person A, either the program went to commercial or Person A just talked over them, in a much louder voice.

The Liberal sees this as evidence of bias.

The Conservative sees this as evidence of balance.


Level Nine (Rush Limbaugh):

Person A uses racial stereotypes, or plays upon racial fears in their argument. Person B calls them out on their use of racist tactics.

The Liberal concludes that Person A is a racist.

The Conservative concludes that minorities are racists.


Level Ten (Glenn Beck):

Person A rattles of a list of paranoid conspiracy theories, involving death panels, concentration camps, a police state and Nazi (or Fascist / Marxist / Sommunist) references to show why his country’s government can’t be trusted. Person B calls them out on the absurdity of this.

The Liberal wonders why anyone is still listening to Person A.

The Conservative wonders why Person B hates his country so much.

4 comments:

  1. Lemme add one, if I may, the Sarah Palin level, which I've seen quite a few times lately.

    Person A tells an obvious, blatant lie. Person B publicly, if not personally, points out their lie by, in standard fashion, presenting contradicting evidence.

    The Liberal concludes that Person A was mistaken at best, and lied at worst.

    The Conservative acts as if counter-evidence is a coordinated attempt to silence them, and claims that their First Amendment rights have been violated.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Person A uses edited video to make it appear a liberal said something they did not say.

    Person B points out that there is more to the video than what Person A has shown and then shows the whole video, bringing context to the video's subject's words.

    Person A concludes that "video can be edited to prove the wrong point", thinking they've just proven Person B wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Dradeeus - I love it. I see a "Sarah Palin Corollary" to Level 3 coming. (Or maybe a 3.5 Rating.)

    @Sammy - I'm going to re-word that one a little, but I love it. Fits in somehwere around Level 6 I'd say? (5.5 or 6.5 or thereabouts?) I'd make it Sean Hannity too, assuming I can figure out who to replace him with at level 8. LOL

    Thanks for your comments. LOVE the additions!

    ReplyDelete