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, June 6, 2011

Four things...

The were a couple of items today on Media Matters that really got me thinking. I was tied up all day at work and didn't have the time to comment on them, but I'd like to do so here, because I think they are very indicative of how Conservatives thynk and what they prynciples are.

(See what I did there?)

The first was this item about the Federal ICE and Secure Communities Programs.  There's a lot of the same old bullshit... (They're not racists, they're just saying that every Mexican is a criminal!)  They lie about they're affect on our economy, and our tax base, and the job market.  But there's a sub-text buried in there, almost like an afterthought, that I found to be almost laughably profound:  They focus on California, and the fact that in opting out of these programs, they also want to opt out of federal cross-checks.  Or, at least... not perform them, per federal immigration law.

Now... they were hardly praising this move.  In fact, as I read it, they seemed to take rather serious issue with California's bucking federal law here.  Which got me thinking:

Aren't these guys supposed to be all about State's Rights and limiting the power of the Federal Government and letting States decide for themselves what laws to have and how to enforce them?

Well... They certainly TALK a good game there.  But it's clear that this principle only matters if those States choose to resits LIBERAL Laws (non-discrimination laws, hate-crime legislation, industrial and environmental regulations) and replace them with CONSERVATIVE ones (anti-abortion measure, union-busting, prayer in school, etc...)  Which means this whole, "States Rights" thing? Isn't a PRINCIPLE at all.  It only comes into play when  it serves their overall agenda - Which has nothing to do with States Rights.  In this case? It's just more blatant racism, using propaganda to refute reality.

The second thing, was this.  In their effort to vilify Planned Parenthood as nothing more than an abortion mill, dedicated to some kind of genocide, the National Review's Rich Lowry, when presented with actual, factual data on how much of PP's business is abortion services (3%) and how much of its revenue was represented by those services (15%) and the fact that no federal money was ever used to pay or or subsidize those services, he simply waved his hands and called the data, "Fake And Bogus."

I've said it before folks: The biggest different between how Liberals think and how Conservatives thynk is that Liberals evaluate the evidence and then form their position accordingly, whilst Conservatives form their position and then evaluate the evidence accordingly.

I've always known that to be true, but I'd never thought I'd see it proven so... clumsily!

The third was RW micro-hack Hugh Hewitt's advice for Sarah Palin to not participate in presidential debates that are organized by "traditional media" outlets, claiming that they were overwhelming opposed to the election of GOP candidates, and that she should expect them to ask the "gotcha" questions.  Like...
"[The] standard stunt questions on abortion in the event of rape or incest, weapons of mass destruction, evolution, global warming, or any of a dozen other dog whistles to the left designed to create the moment that replicates across the Web."
Anyone see anything wrong with this kind of thynking? 

Calling out the fact that they are so far to the right on abortion that they no longer support exceptions for rape victims (or as Keith Olbermann more aptly put it: supporting the rapist's Bill of Rights) is something bad, journalistically speaking?

Pointing out either the continued, absurd belief that Saddam had WMD's, or the utterly psychotic viewpoint that the war was even remotely justified without them (hell - it wasn't necessarily justified WITH them!) is information that the American People shouldn't have access to?

Teaching evolution in the classroom?  Believing in long and thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, and wanting to TEACH that to our children?  We shouldn't know (or care?) about that?!

Global Warming?!  Again with the thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, only this time they get to make money off of it, while slowly dooming humanity to a planet that can no longer support them?  This isn't something we should know about the candidate?!

Hugh... I've got a question for you: If you're so ashamed of you viewpoints, WHY DO YOU HAVE THEM?  If your positions on these issues make you so unpalatable to the American people that you can't even defend them in a simple interview, then WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTE FOR YOU['RE CANDIDATE]? 

Again... I always knew they only cared about winning, and about power, and couldn't give two shits about what's important to a super-majortiy of the American people, but still... 

They're usually better about hiding it!

Though... I still wonder why any politician, any Representative of the People, should hold a position that such an anathema to the people he represents, that he doesn't want anyone to know about it! That ALONE should disqualify ANYONE from holding a public office, no?

And the LAST THING, well... if you REALLY want to read some shit... ;)


  1. Republicans really suck. I agree wholeheartedly. With that said, when do we get chapter two?

  2. Tomorrow, Wednesday latest. And you spoil me!

    -Niceguy Eddie, posting anonymously becuase Blogger is a P-O-S and isn't letting me comment on my own G-D blog!

  3. "hell - it wasn't necessarily justified WITH them!"

    There's no gray area there. Saddam wasn't an imminent threat, WMD or no, and every senior republican was sure of that during every second of Bush's presidency.

    A debate over WMDs goes on for a while ("Clinton thought he had them too!"). A debate over imminent threat ends immediately. Bush's cabal should be convicted as war criminals over imminent threat, not WMDs.

  4. Steeve,

    Agreed. I'd pay for the plane tickets myself, out of pocket (coach, of course!) to send them all to the Hauge.

    ~Niceguy Eddie
    (who's still not being allowed to log into his own comments section!)

  5. Still some problems with Blogger, Eddie. I just tried to edit a comment, and lost it completely upon hitting "preview." Here we go again:
    You're right. There may be a few conservatives out there who hold to the PRINCIPLE (I do wish we could italicize, I hate to shout) of States' Rights, but for the most part it is about power and policy preferences. Where was the conservative outrage over the five Supreme Court Justices who inserted themselves into the Constitutionally proper Florida election count,
    overturning four state appellate court decisions, and deciding a presidential election themselves, in Bush v Gore? They based this on a theory of the 14th Amendment that was so legally suspect, so unlawful even, that they specifically forbade it to be used as a precedent. (I don't think the Constitution gives them that power, but I know why they did it and it should hold. By the theory of the 14th they concocted, the vote counts in Every state, in Every election, are invalid.) It was not a legal decision, it was a political one but, since the outcome was a Republican victory, any conservatives who might have objected have slept with the crickets.

    Now to the always thorny issue of abortion. Full disclosure, I support a woman's right to choose, in all instances, without government interference of any kind. That said, I disagree with the outrage over those who would ban abortion even in the case of rape or incest. If their argument is based, as I believe it is, on the belief that the fetus is a child, with an immortal soul, I don't see how they can accept the killing of that child because of the circumstances of its conception. The "child" is blameless.