Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

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. ;)

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

Sunday, February 19, 2012

A Sad State of Affairs

I haven't written much lately.  I don't know why.  In the past it's been for a lack of interest (on my part) or inspiration, but that definitely hasn't been the case lately.  With Republican's running head-long off a cliff in ways that continue to amaze and astound me, even after all these years, there has been no shortage of material to write about.  And I've been fairly active on Media Matters, intending to do some follow-up here, but lately it seems that sometime between my lunch-hour rants on MMFA and my after-dinner fray into the man-cave, it seems other things just keep crowd out those thoughts.

But one of DW's facebook-friends recently sent her a link to a Guardian article that I absolutely MUST share with you all.  There have been many of these articles written before - you may recall the piece a from 2008 that likened Conservatism to Mental Illness (here's another form 2004) - and they are usually met with the kind of response that proves one of my favorite personal adages:

Argue with a Liberal and they'll prove you're wrong.
Argue with a Conservative and they'll prove you're Liberal.

I'm curious, though not optimistic, to see if any *ahem* Conservative commenters here might do better than that.  We'll see. My favorite part might have been the quotes from Republican Strategist David Frum that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics."  In the column, that quote links to another great column by Paul Krugman where it is shown in its entirety:
Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy ­errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action ­phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”
So... not only is Black White and White Black, but... Black is Black and White is White as well.  Which leads to another favorite adage of mine that sums up the Republican Party, the Right Wing,  and the Conservative Movement:

There two kinds of Conservatives: Evil and Stupid.
One lies and the other buys.
It really all comes down to two groups - Liberals and Conservative - that are both convinced they're right. The DIFFERENCE is that Liberals increasingly have the prevailing Scientific and Economic viewpoint, not to mention the evidence supporting those, on their side whilst Conservatives have increasingly chosen to propagandize for the demonstrably false knowing (as the article points out) that half the population won't knwo any better anyway.  And whether it's Global Warming, Evolution, the Keynesian Economic Model or the Constituton, the Right has grown increasingly separated from reality, and more defiant every day as they say and defend that which is not only  self-evident but, of infinitely more importance, is supported by empirical evidence as well.
Between Sean Hannity claiming that "you can't make the case that the economy is improving," (unless of course you look at, oh I don't know... the rising GDP, the falling unemployment rate, the rising DOW, S&P and Nasdaq, the number of new job's being created each month... you know, literaly EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC INDICIATOR) or Fox arguing that Government Spending hurts the economy (WTF?!) and Sarah Palin insisting that the unemployment numbers must not be acurate (Because, you know, the Right couldn't possibly be WRONG about... well, EVERYTHING, could they?!) the Conservative noise machine has grown increasing desperate with each passing day in their attemtps to get more and more people to ignore what it right in front of them, and to ignore the inevitable social progress that society makes, putting them in th perpetual state of losing the argument, generation after generation.  Adage number three:

Scientists aren't right because they agree with Liberals.
Liberals are right because they agree with Scientists.

Of course, the Right has never been shy about slandering pretty much ANY outfit that (1) Does good and (2) Leans Democratic or Liberal, but I wanted to re-post my repsonse here to CNN's (CNN'S!) Dana Loesch's claim that "It's a 'lie' to claim that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms," because I think it would be an apropriate way to close out this post:
It's a lie to claim there's a "liberal media."

It's a lie to deny that global warming is happening or that it is man-made.

It's a lie to say that one chooses to be homosexual or transgendered.

It's a lie to claim that "both sides do it" when it comes to broadcasting false infomration and distorted, out of context quotes.


It's a lie to claim that the economy has gotten worse under Obama.

It's a lie to put the responsibility for the mortgage crisis anywhere except with the deregulation (and greed) of the banks.

It's a lie to claim that keeping condoms out of schools will stop teenagers from having sex.

It's a lie to claim that "Bush kept us safe from terrorists."

It's a lie to claim that Obama is a Muslim, or a non-American Citizen by birth.

It's a lie to claim that anyone who supports wars and the death penalty is "pro-life."

It's a lie to claim that the war on terror is a war of Christianity vs. Islam, instead of a war of Secular Freedom vs. Religious Fundamentalism and Extremism.

It's a lie to claim that "Happy Holidays" represents a Liberal War on Christmas.

It's a lie to claim that Republicans care about the deficit.

It's a lie to claim that Government spending does harm to the economy.

It's a lit to claim that taxes are "too high."

It's a lie to cliam that Obama raised taxes.

And it's a lie to claim that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an abortion mill.


Here's the thing... It may not have always been the case, but right now, and increasingly over the last 3+ years (and the last 12, and the last 20...) Conservatives have chosen to be wrong on literally EVERYTHING.  (Hey: Even the two issues that I'm most strongly Conservative on, I'll happily admit that my position is indefensible and based entirely on emotion rather than reason!)  And that being the case... knowing that... I'm forced to ask the question: WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE CONSERVATIVE?!

But then... that's already been answered, hasn't it?

23 comments:

  1. "you may recall the piece a from 2008 that likened Conservatism to Mental Illness (here's another form 2004)"

    Isn't that one of the great one-liners that Michael Savage used to say about liberalism? Would SOPA/PIPA allow you (or that article) to steal his copyrighted material like that? Ooops, did I really just ask that? LOL


    " WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE CONSERVATIVE?!"

    Simple answer: to keep from being a liberal. Have you noticed conservatives are usually happy and discuss things while liberals are usually mad and argue things? That speaks volumes for why one chooses light over dark.

    Or we can do the complicated answer: for the same reason anyone would "CHOOSE" to be homosexual. Some like the hate brought their way after their personal choices. And, like homosexuals, they can always choose the other choice if the hate brought their way is too much to handle. God, you gotta love freedom of CHOICE.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "It's a lie to say that one chooses to be homosexual or transgendered."

    Would liberals allow abortion (as an option) if the fetus is predetermined (by DNA) to be homosexual? Would it be OK to abort fetus's that are going to be "born gay" by parents who don't like homosexuals? Would that personal choice be A-OK with liberals?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry to come off so unappealing, especially after William's shocking admission that the reason he likes supply side theory is because its proponents are happy, but since the right answer is socially unacceptable, only I can provide it:

    100% of conservatives are bone-rattlingly stupid
    90% of liberals are bone-rattlingly stupid

    With that lineup, asking why someone is conservative is like asking why a coin comes up tails. The forces in play are so sensitive that they can't be reasoned about; they can only be analyzed statistically.

    ReplyDelete
  4. William. OK... I appreciate your comments, and the interest they generated, so I hope you don't take it amiss when I say there are so many levels of stupid here that I'm going to be exhausted by the time I climb to the top.

    But I'll try...

    "blah... blah... Mike Savage... blah..."

    Mike Savage is an imbecile. What's more, while he may have said it as a throwaway line, experts in the relevant field have gone to great depth and detail to prove the opposite is true. (Par for the course when a Liberal argues with a Conservative.)

    "Simple answer: to keep from being a liberal."

    Well done. I've said that a Liberal will prove you wrong, while a Conservative will prove you Liberal and you've just proven that point: You ADMIT that you'd rather be WRONG than LIBERAL. Well done. As for ME? I didn't CHOOSE to be Liberal, nor did I ever have a problem being Conservative. As I became more educated and better informed, it became increasingly clear that the side called "Liberal" seemed to be right 99% of the time. That started ~12-13 years ago or thereabouts, and the trend has not slowed. I'm what you call "Liberal" because I want to be RIGHT. You choose to be WRONG so you won't be Liberal. ONE of us just happily admitted to being a complete moron. Do you know which one?

    "Have you noticed conservatives are usually happy and discuss things while liberals are usually mad and argue things?"

    No, frankly I haven't. Perhaps you consider that those Conservatives that are so happy talking to you? AGREE with you. If the Liberals you speak to get angry, perhaps it because you insist on supporting destructive policies while elevated propaganda and bullshit talking points ns to same level that we hold ACTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. So yeah: Dealing with that kind of mindless stupidity can get a bit frustrating.

    And being happy doesn't make you right. Nor does being argumentative for that matter. Being RIGHT makes you RIGHT. That you can be happy embraced what is demonstrably wrong, says you're (at best) delusional. I feel better knowing I'm RIGHT.

    Finally? Rush Limbaugh is a NASTY human being. Petty and cruel and Nasty. So is Ann Coulter. So is Bill O'Rielly. So is Sean Hannity. So is Andrew Breitbart. So is Michelle Malkin. So is Mike Savage. So is Laura Slesigner. These are petty, small-minded, bigoted, prejudiced, acid-tongue, mean-spirited, greedy, venomous little scumbags. So NO. I do not know of these "happy, nice Conservatives" of whom you speak. (And to the extent that you no doubt will claim that I have proven your point? Their rhetoric prooves mine. I can't help you if your blind to that.)

    (con't)

    ReplyDelete
  5. (con't)

    "Or we can do the complicated answer: for the same reason anyone would "CHOOSE" to be homosexual."

    So... You were BORN Conservative? Sorry. I ain't buying. And if your suggesting something else, for the fuckteenth time: You're wrong. Look it up. As for me - I wasn't born Liberal. I was actually raised a Conservtaive. Big fan of Reagan growing up. (Maybe I'll put up a copy of the letter I got from him sometime. That was a really big deal to me at one point in my life.) It's as I said: I choose to be RIGHT. Hardly my fault that the Liberal position is usually right, while the Right's is usually senseless. I was not born into an ideology, nor do I chose one. After examining all the evidence, I merely found that one just happens to not have its head stuck up its ass 99% of the time.

    "And, like homosexuals, they can always choose the other choice"

    Well... no they can't. So I guess that means I'm wasting my time with you then as well?

    As for all that "choosing to bring themselves hate" clap-trap? You really are a despicable person, aren't you? Nice way to blame the victim. No, sir: YOU choose to continue to embrace a destructive philosophy, only because you'd rather "be hated" than "be liberal." Of course, as I said: You're also choosing to be WRONG, rather than LIBERAL, so... Whatever. The homosexual choses to follow the path that the y find fulfilling and that makes them happy. And YOU are the ones who chose to hate them for it. You "nice, happy, (un)argumentative" Conservatives. [G]ood [F]or [Y]ou, William. [G]ood [F]or [Y]ou.

    "God, you gotta love freedom of CHOICE."

    Indeed I do. It's at the core of my personal philosophy, in fact. And I've written rather extensively about. (Do a google site-search on the "Doctrine of Choice," If you'd like to test that assertion.) Its too bad the Political Philosophy YOU SUPPORT tends to HATE that freedom, unless you "choose" the way they want you to.

    "Would liberals allow abortion (as an option) if the fetus is predetermined (by DNA) to be homosexual?"

    What an odd question, seeing as how liberals (1) have no problem with homosexuals and (2) support legalized abortion, each within their own personal boundaries. (The same as you do, as you previously demonstrated.)

    I think it would be FAR more appropriate to ask:

    "Would CONSERVTAIVES allow abortion (as an option) if the fetus is predetermined (by DNA) to be homosexual?"

    ...seeing as how they're the ones who have a problem with both.

    And as more my PERSONAL OPINION? It doesn't really change all that much. I don't need you to invent new ways for Conservatives to act in a despicable manner. (Because let's face it: We're talking about CONSERVATIVES having that abortion, since no true Liberal would ever DO that.) Wow, so you can come up with yet one more reason for me to despise the Right. Thanks, but... Not really necessary: I despise what they stand for ALREADY.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steeve - While I'm perhaps a bit more optimistic than you seem to be (I'd say 90% of Con's and only about 40% of Libs) I do appreciate - and basically agree with - your statistical analysis here.

    Which is pretty much like the first article puts it: Right Wing ideology tends to appeal to, for lack of a more clinically appropriate term, the STUPID.

    I still say only about 90% though because according to my own second adage: The are TWO kinds of Conservatives, EVIL and STUPID. (One lies, one buys.) Maybe the liars are only the top 1% (maybe 2%, considering that only half the country, at best, is conservative) so maybe it's 98-99% stupid. But don't ignore the EVIL part at the top. SOMEONE is benefiting from all the Williams'es in the world going to the voting booth and happily FUCKING THEMSELVES.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the evil are also stupid. Long term they need lots and lots of people to have purchasing power. They're optimizing their portfolios as skillfully and rationally as buffalo hunters.

    "SOMEONE is benefiting from all the Williamses in the world going to the voting booth and happily FUCKING THEMSELVES."

    Nope. It's "fucking themselves" all the way to the very top.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry, I did that wrong.

    The super rich do better under democrats. No need to invoke "long term". The super rich are stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nice. Thanks! Not that were really disagreed in the big picture sense, but once again a Liberal has proven me wrong, whilst a Conservative proved me Liberal. Well done, sir. "Fucking themselves" all the way to the very top indeed. I wouldn't have thought that. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  10. "These are petty, small-minded, bigoted, prejudiced, acid-tongue, mean-spirited, greedy, venomous little scumbags."

    Explain how all those people, you just mentioned, are any different than you and the method YOU use to discuss and describe conservative ideology as you rant in your internet blog site. You are NO different than them, yet you describe them as the most vial people in the world. Have you ever re-read ANY of your posts? I haven't heard any of the people (you named) say anything worse than what you say on a consistent basis. Yet, you seem to think you are holy and above all reproof. Good for you. I'm glad you have people who support you and make you feel important while you spew all the "petty, small-minded, bigoted, prejudiced, acid-toungued, mean-spirited" statements that you constantly make. You making those statements is considered kind and respectable by all the like-minded thinkers, here, but when someone else makes a statement like that you call them evil.
    You are the biggest hypocrite of them all.


    "So... You were BORN Conservative? Sorry. I ain't buying."

    And rightly so. I was not BORN conservative. You were not BORN liberal. You were also not BORN straight (or gay, if you are). It is a CHOICE you make. When you can bring some real scientific proof that homosexuality is controlled by a gene in your DNA then you can claim civil rights are being violated. Until that happens you make a CHOICE to be gay or straight. And making a CHOICE about your sexual preferences does NOT give you civil rights equal to racial or women's rights. You may not like that, but until you have proof of ANY other possibility than someone WANTS to be homosexual, then that is the fact as we know it. Use one of the many scientists that you agree with to support your stance. Or just continue to post hateful comments about people who don't agree with your philosophy... like Savage, Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, Sleshinger and Brietbart do. You know, the ones you call evil for making those kind of statements.


    "Would liberals allow abortion (as an option) if the fetus is predetermined (by DNA) to be homosexual?"

    I asked that question in an effort to get an honest answer about your feelings on abortion and homosexuality (since YOU brought it into this discussion). Obviously, you have no intention of being honest. Thanks for showing that. As for your twist of that question, no I would still not support abortion for all the same reasons I've stated before. However, your answer leads one to believe that you (being a liberal) would approve of 'selective abortion' in all walks of life. Great theology you support there. And great way of avoiding direct questions concerning your "personal philosophy". I expect nothing less from a liberal.



    BTW, do you want a second chance to answer both the questions I asked of you.
    You avoided the question I asked about SOPA approving how you stole copyrighted material from Savage. (not a "throw-away line" but a copyrighted BOOK)
    You avoided the question about liberals not wanting abortions if the fetus was proven, by DNA, to be homosexual.
    Instead you go on hateful rants about how evil Ann Coulter and others (whom you hate) are and how you liked Reagan. Which somehow proves you are even-minded?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "William. OK... I appreciate your comments, and the interest they generated"

    No, you don't. You merely want another target for your hateful statements about conservatives and the ideals they follow. You're just another arrow from the comic you start your blog site with.
    That's ok, though. I'll just stop posting and you will continue posting vial statements while whining about others making the same kind of statements and all your like-minded thinkers will continue to ignore your posts until another target shows up. Great business philosophy you follow, there: chase those increasing your income away because you don't like them using your business.




    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/berkeley-police-too-occupied-to-deal-with-brutal-beating-that-left-man-dead/

    OR:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/19/BAFU1N9T8J.DTL

    "The victim had called police on a nonemergency line after first seeing Dewitt, according to sources familiar with the case. But police were busy monitoring an Occupy Oakland march to UC Berkeley, and officers were dispatched only to high-priority calls."

    Another shining example of issues liberals proudly support while denying there is a danger from their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eddie;
    Here is a very incisive article by Matt Taibbi on the degeneration of the Republican Party, as evidenced by the way independent thought is suppressed, and each candidate competes to be the most paranoid 'conservative.' He makes a very compelling comparison with the internecine fear and hatred in the Communist Party of Stalin's USSR.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/arizona-debate-conservative-chickens-come-home-to-roost-20120223

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Another shining example of issues liberals proudly support while denying there is a danger from their actions."

    Actually it's another shining example of spectacularly incompetent assignment of resources, and of police brass finding citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights to be terrifying, and a greater priority, than 'protecting and serving.'

    ReplyDelete
  14. Eddie - Thanks for another painful reminder that great Repubs seem to be dead and gone, and the label 'conservative' has been perverted.

    Conchobhar - Thanks for the link, further twisting the knife Eddie stabbed me with.

    All that's missing is for Classic to pour salt on the wound.

    You guys keep these b@stards on the defensive and I'll keep trying to get my party back to Nixon, Goldwater, or Ike.

    -okiepoli

    ReplyDelete
  15. Any time. If CL doesn't show up with salt, give a shout. I'll be happy to pour some Irish on it to keep it from festering.
    Ike was hard not to like, even for New Deal Dems like my parents. We moved to the D.C. area in 54, and my Dad got hard-to-acquire balcony tickets to an office building overlooking his 56 Inaugural Procession. Memory's a funny thing. I was there, in person, but my images of it are black and white, as if I'd seen a newsreel.
    His farewell address, with its warning about the Military-Industrial Complex, shows that there was a great deal of intelligence and wisdom behind that unassuming face. Would that the warning had been heeded. Now we have the Military-Industrial-Intelligence-National-Security State, and I don't know how long we can survive that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Eddie said: "ACTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE"

    What "empirical evidence" do you have that homosexuality is NOT a choice?

    It's a good thing you've chosen to no longer answer comments made on your blog site. I guess it gets overwhelmingly embarrassing to be so hypocritical so often. When classicliberal was asked to prove his statements he ran away too. Now there's 2 liberals afraid to answer their claims of fact. Nothing unexpected there. And the other liberals (here)?? ... just change the subject when they find an inability to discuss the actual issue.


    Eddie said: "The homosexual choses to follow the path that they find fulfilling and that makes them happy."

    That's right! They CHOOSE. What other sexual choices will the liberal support to garner civil rights? Perhaps your beloved molester will be able to get civil rights for his/her CHOICE of sexual behavior that they "find fulfilling and that makes them happy". After all, you claim that chosen sexual preferences are sufficient to garner civil rights for the homosexual and transgendered as long as it "makes them happy". Oh wait, there's yet another example of the hypocrisy of the liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, William, the homosexual chooses to act in accordance with his innate orientation, just as you choose to act on yours. The other choices for him/her are celibacy or "straight-jacketing," a term I just coined for trying to live as a heterosexual because of the cultural pressures put on by the society in which they live.

    I really, truly pity you, that you are so small spirited you are threatened and speak with such contempt and hatred of people whose happiness (do you really have to put that in sarcastic quotes?) is found in a way different from yours.

    I don't however, pity the person who can accuse Eddie, given what he's written, of loving a child molester. For that you have my pure contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And what "pressures" are they living with in today's society? They have the freedoms and human rights every one else has. I think they're making another "choice" ... choosing to 'feel' inferior and whining about it until people like you feel sorry enough for them that you give them civil rights that are reserved for people who have no choice as to who they are.


    "I really, truly pity you, that you are so small spirited you are threatened and speak with such contempt and hatred of people whose happiness is found in a way different from yours."

    Hmmm. I've said this again and again. What does that say about YOU who feel people of 'other' sexual choices are the scourge of society while homosexuals are excellent examples of humanity? Tell me how you justify that statement after you complained about pedophiles not being worthy of civil rights BECAUSE of their sexual choices, while homosexuals ARE worthy BECAUSE of theirs? Keep in mind you just set the standard with: "people whose happiness is found in a way different from yours.".

    ReplyDelete
  19. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, victimization of a child is the difference. Maybe you'll understand (against your will, of course) if I put it into a sports metaphor. I play ice hockey with men, and coach kids. If, when I'm on the ice with mites or bantams, I decided to play them the way I play against men, IT WOULD BE CHILD ABUSE, and I would, and should, pay a heavy price for it. But playing hockey in itself, is a good thing.
    Now, take your bigotry and stuff it where the sun don't shine.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So, what you're saying is that having a sexual perversion is a good thing as long as YOU consider it a good thing? Muhammad is considered a pedophile, yet half the world admires him and will threaten to murder you if you say anything bad about him.
    Hmm, just sayin that half the world admires a pedophile, yet YOU determine it to be harmful. Personally, I think it's just another sexual perversion ... just like homosexuality is. And while I'll pray for the individual, I will still hate the lifestyle. But, you'll never understand that, will you?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I understand it; I reject the hypocrisy. The comments you've made directed at me and my family, give the lie to that 'hate the sin, love the sinner' shit.

    Personally, I have not heard that Mohammed was a pedophile. Perhaps you're more informed than I. You do seem to be inordinately fascinated with the subject.
    Let's just make this clear, in light of your "...just like..." (in your bigoted opinion) "homosexuality is." The fact that you can't see a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia (these are factual differences, not subject to opinion) is conclusive evidence that you don't have either the intellect or the integrity to argue the subject. Otherwise, for consistency's sake if nothing else, you would have been arguing that all sexual orientations are perversions, since some pedophiles target prepubescent girls.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Personally, I have not heard that Mohammed was a pedophile."

    That's not unexpected. But, consider, a pedophile is one of the worlds most influential people.

    ReplyDelete