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. ;)

Brick-and-Happy-Gun logo (above) by Munky Wrench, of Bent Wrench Studios

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

Monday, October 6, 2014

Seven things Liberals already knew...

So Rolling receltny published an article that I've re-titled, "Six studies that prove things Liberals already knew."

...add to the recent UTTER BULLSHIT from a Republican member of the Colorado School boards about how we ended slavery voluntarily and you can include a 7th item that the Right doesn't know shit about: The Civil War.

History FAIL
Science FAIL
Economics FAIL
Public Policy FAIL

...and yet people still vote for the worthless pieces of shit.  Unbelievable.

34 comments:

  1. Are you kidding me? You really think slavery ended during the civil war? No wonder people have such a hard time believe ANYTHING liberals have to say. Hell, you people concocted the idea that "Redskins" is a derogatory word. You liberals are losing all credibility every day (as if you had any to begin with). You welcome racist KKK leaders into your fold by saying they "repented". You make religion take a back seat to your whims because 20 or 30 people don't like praying. Give me a break, when are you people going to get a life? You people want to correct a REAL problem? Start driving electric cars and STOP driving internal combustion cars. But, hey, you can only expect so much from a liberal. And, trust me, what we expect from liberals is very little except whining. You whine about this ... you whine about that ... but you never seem to actually DO what you whine about everyone else NEEDING to do. That's why no one really cares about what you currently whine about. But, for God's sake ... keep whining.

    Is THAT one of the 7 things liberals already know?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1: Your evidence does not show that higher minimum wages "lifts people out of poverty".
    2: Facts show that the unemployment rate is STILL higher than during any year of Bush's pre-market crash times.
    3: All gobbly-gook. Nothing they brought made any sense
    4: Well, let's see ... if all those exploding volcanoes don't cause it then what are our other choices? Monkeys don't seem smart enough to do it their own, cows just do it naturally.
    5: Unless you're a veteran trying to get your coverage. Then you have to wait years before you hear anything from them. IF they didn't delete your records.
    6: Ok, I'll give you that one. Rich people ARE no better than the rest of us.

    THAT'S why we vote for those worthless pieces of shit ... because YOU people can't do any better. AND, you STILL refuse to stop using internal combustion engines to get around. If you want to continue whining about ANYTHING, then you better get your collective asses in gear and stop burning fossil fuels. Otherwise, there will be no planet for you to whine about. But, hey, what the hell do YOU people care about conservation? As long as there is someone (me) to fix your BMW's, Volvo's, Mercedes, ect... (the worst polluters of all of them).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And, trust me, what we expect from liberals is very little except whining."

      Says the jackass still bitching about Robert Byrd and not being able to force religion on the general public. Get a life, indeed.

      "1: Your evidence does not show that higher minimum wages "lifts people out of poverty"."

      That wasn't the main point of the section. It was about how the minimum wage doesn't kill jobs. Also, you don't explain how the evidence is lacking.

      "2: Facts show that the unemployment rate is STILL higher than during any year of Bush's pre-market crash times."

      So creating millions of jobs doesn't count because it doesn't fix the entire catastrophe created before he took office? Right.

      "3: All gobbly-gook. Nothing they brought made any sense"

      Empty assertion.

      "4: Well, let's see ... if all those exploding volcanoes don't cause it then what are our other choices? Monkeys don't seem smart enough to do it their own, cows just do it naturally."

      Are you disputing the article? It's hard to tell how, if you are.

      "5: Unless you're a veteran trying to get your coverage. Then you have to wait years before you hear anything from them. IF they didn't delete your records."

      How does that address the ACA?

      And when, exactly, are you claiming that slavery ended?

      "AND, you STILL refuse to stop using internal combustion engines to get around."

      As opposed to conservatives, who are famous for their environmentalism. Note the sarcasm.

      Delete
    2. "That wasn't the main point of the section."

      Obviously, I'm not commenting on the "main point", huh? But, if you had read the article, you would have noticed it was "a" point being made.

      "Right."

      Millions more people eligible to work makes it easier to pad those numbers, even after the "catastrophe" that was created. Yet unemployment is still higher than before it.

      "Empty assertion."

      Your usual response when facts are indisputable.

      " It's hard to tell how, if you are."

      I'm sure it is hard for you to follow along. Reading comprehension has never been one of your strong suits.

      "How does that address the ACA?"

      If the government that is forcing veterans to get health care, then ignores their applications ... how do you THINK it addresses the ACA?

      "And when, exactly, are you claiming that slavery ended?"

      I'm pretty sure I asked a question, not made a claim.

      " Note the sarcasm."

      I didn't say conservatives don't drive. I guess your reading comprehension isn't able to pick up on the hypocrisy of LIBERALS whining about global warming while they continue to contribute to the cause of it. Lead by example. Or don't ... your choice.

      BTW, I still commute on a bicycle 6 days a week for the past 5 years or so (yes, even through winter).

      Delete
    3. "Obviously, I'm not commenting on the "main point", huh?"

      Obviously, which is why I mentioned it. You're not debunking one of the things referenced in the title of the article. The studies demonstrate that raising the minimum wage doesn't cost anyone jobs, which shows that Republicans are wrong. And again, you didn't explain your reasoning.

      "Yet unemployment is still higher than before it."

      Then before the catastrophe, as I said. In other words, you don't want to admit that improvement counts at all unless it reaches that level.

      "Your usual response when facts are indisputable."

      Your comment was that the section in the article was "gobbly-gook", which isn't a "fact". You can say that anything doesn't make sense merely in order to avoid addressing it, and you often do.

      "I'm sure it is hard for you to follow along."

      Which is why you thought part of the article was "gobbly-gook". That didn't work out well for you at all. Also, I'll take your failure to clarify yourself as an admission that you weren't disputing the article.

      "If the government that is forcing veterans to get health care, then ignores their applications ... how do you THINK it addresses the ACA?"

      The issues with the VA stem from long before the ACA. I also haven't been forced to sign up with ACA, since I'm on Tricare.

      "I'm pretty sure I asked a question, not made a claim."

      I know, which is why I asked what you are claiming. If you had said something with substance behind it, I wouldn't have to ask for that information. You are clearly saying that slavery did not end during the Civil War, so you must have some alternative "fact" in mind.

      "I guess your reading comprehension isn't able to pick up on the hypocrisy of LIBERALS whining about global warming while they continue to contribute to the cause of it."

      No, that was not your point: "Otherwise, there will be no planet for you to whine about. But, hey, what the hell do YOU people care about conservation?"

      You were talking about actual problems that needed to be solved, not about hypocrisy.

      More proof: "You people want to correct a REAL problem? Start driving electric cars and STOP driving internal combustion cars."

      You cited conservation and concerns about the planet without attributing them to anyone else. Learn to write before you comment on anyone else's reading comprehension.

      Delete
    4. "You cited conservation and concerns about the planet without attributing them to anyone else. Learn to write before you comment on anyone else's reading comprehension."

      Learn to read before you attempt to counter things you don't understand.

      "You were talking about actual problems that needed to be solved, not about hypocrisy."

      So, when you type in "note the sarcasm" you think people don't know already. I guess, I need to type in "note the hypocrisy" for your feeble mind to get it.
      Ok, noted.

      Delete
    5. "Learn to read before you attempt to counter things you don't understand."

      Another empty assertion. You don't explain how you could have been talking about hypocrisy, given the context that you so clearly provided. Make an effort.

      "So, when you type in "note the sarcasm" you think people don't know already."

      No, I think that anyone with an IQ over 70 knows that. I point it out so that you don't claim that it's something other than sarcasm.

      "I guess, I need to type in "note the hypocrisy" for your feeble mind to get it."

      Actually, what you need to do is to recognize that there's a difference between problems that politicians can address and supposed hypocrisy among liberals. You were talking about solving problems, not the attitudes of nameless individuals that you disagree with. When you jumble unrelated thoughts together, you can't expect others to assume that your context has no bearing, and that you're actually talking about a completely different subject altogether.

      Also, it would be rather stupid to say "note the hypocrisy", since "note the sarcasm" refers to the writer's intent. You would, in fact, be saying that you were being hypocritical.

      Like I said, learn how to write. Your failure to maintain a coherent train of thought is not my responsibility. Make a note of that.

      Delete
    6. "No, I think that anyone with an IQ over 70 knows that. I point it out so that you don't claim that it's something other than sarcasm."

      Ahh, so you admit your IQ is less than 70, so now I have to type in "note the hypocrisy by many liberals" each time. That way you understand it is happening. Obviously, if your IQ was any higher you'd have known what I was saying. But .. alas.

      "Actually, what you need to do is to recognize that there's a difference between problems that politicians can address and supposed hypocrisy among liberals."

      Politicians have addressed that problem many times over. It still is up to the individual to actually DO what they recommend. I AM. Are YOU? (note the hypocrisy by many liberals)
      Perhaps not if you IQ is too far under 70.
      BTW, your admission of your under 70 IQ is duly noted.

      Delete
    7. "Ahh, so you admit your IQ is less than 70, so now I have to type in "note the hypocrisy by many liberals" each time."

      That doesn't even follow your previous post, you know. You asked whether I thought other people recognized sarcasm. What's your claim now, that I don't recognize my own sarcasm? Or were you just wildly confused?

      "Politicians have addressed that problem many times over. It still is up to the individual to actually DO what they recommend."

      Which applies to people of all political views, so it doesn't make any sense for you to single out liberals.

      "BTW, your admission of your under 70 IQ is duly noted."

      Your inane redundancy is noted. Read your posts at least once before you submit them.

      Do you have anything of substance to say, or are you going to repeat your nonsensical personal attacks for the next few weeks?

      Delete
    8. "Which applies to people of all political views, so it doesn't make any sense for you to single out liberals."

      Sure it does. Liberals are the ones who whine the loudest about global warming, yet continue to contribute to it. If you're going to whine about something, the LEAST you could do is stop contributing to it. That would be like whining about Rush Limbaugh, then continue to send him money to support his show.
      And, besides, I can single out any group I want at any time. If you have complaints of other groups, feel free to share your complaints.

      "Do you have anything of substance to say, or are you going to repeat your nonsensical personal attacks for the next few weeks?"

      Yes.

      Delete
    9. "Sure it does. Liberals are the ones who whine the loudest about global warming, yet continue to contribute to it."

      You said that it was an actual problem, though, so all people need to address it. The topic wasn't "hypocrisy".

      "And, besides, I can single out any group I want at any time."

      Oh, really?: "Eddie, I'm curious if you're going to have any articles on how Pres Obama is bombing sovereign nations (without their approval) and steadily increasing ground forces in Iraq after you steadfastly denounced Bush for doing the same thing. Do I think I'll see any of those kind of articles? Nah, don't think so. That damned 'hate those conservative policies' keeps getting in your way, huh? And you would sure hate that 'hypocrite' implication on your support of Pres Obama's policies, too, wouldn't ya."
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/09/an-interview-with-christian-beranek.html

      "Yes."

      Your vague answer suggests that you don't have anything of substance to say. That's not surprising.

      Delete
    10. "You said that it was an actual problem, though, so all people need to address it."

      That's right. You are a liberal: you drive an internal combustion powered vehicle daily (contributes to global warming), I am a conservative: I ride a bicycle daily (no contributions to global warming). Hence my conclusion that liberals refuse to do what they demand, while conservatives do as needed to correct an obviously destructive situation.

      "Your vague answer suggests that you don't have anything of substance to say. That's not surprising."

      Ask less "vague" questions. If that isn't too far above your <70 IQ abilities.

      Delete
    11. "That's right."

      Then there's no reason to single out liberals.

      "You are a liberal: you drive an internal combustion powered vehicle daily (contributes to global warming), I am a conservative: I ride a bicycle daily (no contributions to global warming)."

      I would love to see you try to ride a bicycle twenty-five miles, each way, into town every day. Even better, ride a bike to my Army Reserve assemblies, carrying along a hundred pounds of TA-50. It's not the same as you pedaling a few miles on accommodating streets.

      "Hence my conclusion that liberals refuse to do what they demand, while conservatives do as needed to correct an obviously destructive situation."

      Fascinating. Jim Bakker had an affair, while I never have. Hence, evangelicals are unfaithful scumbags, while atheists are loyal family men. Besides that, I never said that everyone has to get an electric car whether they can afford a new car or not, so there is no "demand" that you can apply to me. You fail on every level.

      "Ask less "vague" questions."

      There wasn't anything vague about my question. Grow up.

      Delete
    12. "I would love to see you try to ride a bicycle twenty-five miles, each way, into town every day."

      Typical liberal ... nothing but excuses. While conservatives provide action for the demands of those who excuse why they can't do what they demand others to do.
      BTW, you have never carried "a hundred pounds" of anything to any AR assembly. You're a self-admitted paper-pusher. Pencils only weigh a couple ounces and your lap-top only weighs a couple pounds (8 or less).
      Also, my commute is 13 miles each way (Oakland, San Leandro and Hayward CA city streets). That's 26 miles total (for the <70 IQ crowd). Can you name a more dangerous city than Oakland Ca for a white guy to ride a bike through. Oh, wait, I'm sure you'll name yours because you are so offended by others outdoing you.

      " Jim Bakker had an affair, while I never have."

      More subject changes? Wow you really are flustered. LOL

      "There wasn't anything vague about my question."

      Then learn how to read. I answered your questions. What more do you want, liberal?

      Delete
    13. "Typical liberal ... nothing but excuses."

      In other words, you can't do what you're demanding of me.

      "BTW, you have never carried "a hundred pounds" of anything to any AR assembly."

      Yes, I have. You do know that 42As get deployed just like anyone else, right? Incidentally, there's no shame in my service. You were a mechanic in the Army, not some Airborne Ranger.

      "Can you name a more dangerous city than Oakland Ca for a white guy to ride a bike through."

      I don't think that people of other races are "dangerous", so I would say that the narrow and winding roads near my house are much more hazardous.

      "More subject changes?"

      No, I just proved that your logic is bankrupt. You can't generalize based on individuals. Or maybe you're just sensitive because I proved that you're an adulterer using your own logic.

      "Then learn how to read. I answered your questions."

      Not sufficiently. You can't answer an either/or question with "yes", because it doesn't specify which option you were referring to. Maybe you didn't read the question properly to begin with.

      Delete
    14. "Not sufficiently. You can't answer an either/or question with "yes", because it doesn't specify which option you were referring to. Maybe you didn't read the question properly to begin with."

      Maybe you didn't read the answer correctly. Perhaps, "yes" was to both either/or.

      Delete
    15. "Maybe you didn't read the answer correctly. Perhaps, "yes" was to both either/or."

      Then that would be up to you to specify, not for me to assume. Without making assumptions, your answer remains vague.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    16. "Then that would be up to you to specify, not for me to assume."

      Why? Is your IQ so far under 70 that you couldn't figure that out on your own without someone telling you? Well, let me help you out (and I'll type real slow just for you) "yes" .... is .... to .... both .... questions. (sorry about that long word at the end)
      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    17. "Is your IQ so far under 70 that you couldn't figure that out on your own without someone telling you?"

      There's no information in "yes" which could possibly indicate your meaning, therefore intelligence is not a factor in interpreting it that way. All that would be is a baseless assumption, which doesn't require any amount of critical thinking. And, it's actually not fair to make such assumptions, as opposed to giving someone an opportunity to clarify themselves. So, you're welcome.

      Also, since you said "yes" to both, you accepted the premise that your personal attacks are nonsensical. You admitted that what you're doing now has no value or meaning, as if it wasn't obvious already.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    18. "You admitted that what you're doing now has no value or meaning, as if it wasn't obvious already."

      Actually, by answering yes to both, it means I will bring both substance and personal attacks to the conversation. Now, if you're ready to get back to discussing the actual subject, we can continue my "substance" part of it. But, if all you want to do is play word games, then you'll get the "nonsensical" part of it. Your choice.

      Either way, I'm still ROTFLMAO over your last reply. Don't get too dizzy running in the circles you're running in.

      Delete
    19. "Actually, by answering yes to both, it means I will bring both substance and personal attacks to the conversation."

      No, the phrase was "nonsensical personal attacks", which you said "yes" to. And since your last few posts haven't addressed anything relevant, your "substance" claim was obviously a lie.

      "Now, if you're ready to get back to discussing the actual subject, we can continue my "substance" part of it."

      You're the one who limited your posts to whining about being called out on a vague answer. Nobody's forcing you to avoid addressing my arguments except yourself.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    20. "Nobody's forcing you to avoid addressing my arguments except yourself."

      What arguments have YOU brought that I haven't addressed?

      "And since your last few posts haven't addressed anything relevant, your "substance" claim was obviously a lie."

      You bring something of substance I'll discuss it. If you bring nonsensical shit, then you get what you pay for. If you're only talking about the last "few" posts, then what have YOU brought of any substance?

      Thanks for keeping me laughing at your mentality.

      Delete
    21. "What arguments have YOU brought that I haven't addressed?"

      Just for one obvious example, I showed how you can't make generalizations based off of individuals. Instead of responding, you wanted to pretend that your "yes" answer wasn't vague.

      "If you're only talking about the last "few" posts, then what have YOU brought of any substance?"

      I've responded to what you have posted in full. Don't whine because I'm not holding your hand and leading you back to the points that you've wandered away from.

      Anything else? I'm still waiting for the "substance" you promised.

      Delete
    22. "I'm still waiting for the "substance" you promised."

      I made no promise. But, it's funny keeping you posting over stupid shit. When you read the very last part that I write ... look in the mirror, so you know who I'm laughing at

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    23. "But, it's funny keeping you posting over stupid shit."

      You just admitted to posting "stupid shit" and to being a troll. That's not a victory for you.

      Also, "promise": "1: to pledge to do, bring about, or provide " (merriam-webster.com)
      When you say that you are going to do something, you are promising it.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    24. I don't "promise" to do my part to correct global warming ... I am DOING it. You, on the other hand, do not while demanding others do something you are unwilling to do. That, my friend, is typical liberalism. I wonder if that's one of the 7 things liberals already know. (see? at least I can stay on-topic during the conversation. you might try it once in a while.)

      "Anything else?"

      Let's see, you're posting the definition of "promise" on an article about liberal knowledge with nothing to relate it to and you DON'T consider that being a troll?

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    25. "I don't "promise" to do my part to correct global warming ... I am DOING it."

      That's not what we were talking about.

      "You, on the other hand, do not while demanding others do something you are unwilling to do."

      What demands did I supposedly make? Let's see a link.

      "Let's see, you're posting the definition of "promise" on an article about liberal knowledge with nothing to relate it to and you DON'T consider that being a troll?"

      Correcting your false statements is perfectly acceptable, and you have no argument to the contrary.

      Still waiting for "substance" instead of more "stupid shit" from you. But, by your standard, I could say that your trolling is just "typical conservatism".

      Delete
    26. "Still waiting for "substance" instead of more "stupid shit" from you."

      Perhaps you missed the parameter that is required for me to fulfill that offer. You must bring something of substance before I'll respond with substance.
      Here's the entire quote you are basing that "promise" on: "You bring something of substance I'll discuss it. If you bring nonsensical shit, then you get what you pay for.". Now, the ball is in your court. You can either play or go home. Either way, it's still very cute how you miss-interpret (or ignore) what is actually said in order to complete your whines.

      "That's not what we were talking about."

      So, that's the best you can do with bringing something of substance for me to reply to? That is very vague and quite dishonest. We WERE talking about global warming and who was or was not doing their part. I am .. you are not.

      " But, by your standard, I could say that your trolling is just "typical conservatism"."

      Sure you can say that. It doesn't mean it's true. From experience with our previous conversations, I would kind of expect you to bring statements that are not true.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    27. "You must bring something of substance before I'll respond with substance."

      You ignore substance. For instance, as recently demonstrated, you can't explain how you can possibly justify making generalizations based off of individuals. You never responded to that, even as your own process of generalization proved that you're an adulterer.

      "Here's the entire quote you are basing that "promise" on: "You bring something of substance I'll discuss it. If you bring nonsensical shit, then you get what you pay for."."

      No, this is what I'm basing it on:
      Me:"Do you have anything of substance to say, or are you going to repeat your nonsensical personal attacks for the next few weeks?"
      You:"Yes."
      Also, you: "Actually, by answering yes to both, it means I will bring both substance and personal attacks to the conversation."
      Notice how that doesn't rely on any demands of me. You claimed that your "yes" answer promised "substance", all by itself.

      "So, that's the best you can do with bringing something of substance for me to reply to?"

      Me: "I'm still waiting for the "substance" you promised."
      You: "I made no promise."
      That wasn't about you riding your bike. I'm going to correct your errors, and that doesn't reflect poorly on me.

      "Sure you can say that. It doesn't mean it's true."

      So, what is it that makes your single-person generalizations "true", outside of your bigoted preconceptions? Here's a chance for you to provide the "substance" that you promised, if you're capable.

      Delete
    28. That's an appeal to ridicule, with no substance accompanying it. I win, yet again.

      Delete
  3. I love you, William. You are ALWAYS good for a laugh. I'm just going to let your posts stand uncontested. I don't see anythere here that's going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

    If you'd ever care to do a live-stream debate some time on each of these topics one by one, after which I could post the video here, I'd certainly love to host that. Until then, enojy the tea.

    If OTOH you ARE game for that drop me a line (you have my email) and we'll set something up. I think it would be fun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I love you, William. You are ALWAYS good for a laugh."

      I love you too, my brother. God bless you. I appreciate the compliment.

      Delete