There are many criticisms and characterizations that can legitimately be levied against the current White House occupant, but I have been missing something if it’s true that he regularly loses control of his bladder. Every time I open that thread to see what new revelations may be posted about him and the important things that will actually affect me and the Nation, I seldom can avoid the mental image that that term brings to mind. I would, however, be willing to accept it if there were any evidence that it is true—so, is it? If so, what is the evidence? Inquiring minds would like to know.

As a side issue, if you accuse the man of the condition without any evidence other than your belief that all old people are incontinent, then I suggest you examine other similar beliefs you may hold without evidence. Logical thinking is a useful skill even in these times when illogical thinking seems to be becoming so common. The one-eyed man in the valley of the blind comes to mind. Plus, if you are convinced that all old people inevitably become incontinent at some point, then I recommend that you avoid becoming old yourself. I have seen it (thus far only in others, fortunately) and you won’t like it.

Finally, if you feel compelled to lard your posts with the term whenever the opportunity presents itself only because of your fascination with human excretory functions, how about just growing up?

I was thinking the same thing. I thought maybe I had missed an account of it.

Even if true, I'm not sure of the purpose, all other things going on considered.

This thread is taking the piss.


Joking aside, it's a few posters who seem unable to form a statement on a political subject without adding the obligatory personal attack on whoever is the author of the item or policy in question.

Are you seriously trying to defend this dementia-addled potato of a so-called President?



He deserves that term and much more, a thousand times a day.

The criticism is purely insulting and degrading of the individual.

It is exactly the the negative and repulsive imagery you describe that is the goal of its use as a pejorative.
Perhaps the overuse and needing more variety of adjectives is in order.

Human history is full of such taunts, and often the more absurd and lurid, the harder they are to "lose".

On a baser level and in a more refined and cultured mind, such speech is avoided.

"Them's fighting words." Is certainly germane and likely a bit better than actual fighting.

Are not many political cartoons the visual absurdity that the speech conveys?

Boorish? Yes. But it is certainly insulting, and I believe the point.

FWIW, I never have, and likely never would use that term.
As you stated, so many obvious actions that are relevant which should be pointed out.

There is more than enough factual policy related items to attack or criticize every politician on without resorting to some personal attack, true or not.

When I see people add the obligatory personal attack I automatically disregard any information presented by that person. Sometimes I do realize our anger gets the better of us....all of us.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Are you seriously trying to defend this dementia-addled potato of a so-called President?

There is nothing in my post that defends him. I recommend reading it again, and especially this part:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Logical thinking is a useful skill even in these times when illogical thinking seems to be becoming so common.

And even if it were true (still waiting for evidence of it), it would be no more applicable to any of the important things that afflict the Nation than the fact that he has a receding hairline. Ted Cruz has gray in his beard; what if every reference to him by the BS media called him “gray beard Cruz”? Would we mock someone for being short or ugly? (Not for long on this forum, fortunately.) What would we think of a leftist who accused Thomas Sowell of being “urine soaked” as a way of attacking his penetrating analyses of racial issues even if he did have incontinence problems?

Again, read it again and think about what you’re really saying—or at least what I said.

quote:

Originally posted by Vegas_Sig:

There is more than enough factual policy related items to attack or criticize every politician on without resorting to some personal attack.

Yup. Name-calling like this, or distorting somebody's name (like "Bidet" or "Shrillary") to mock him / her, is adolescent behavior and detracts from the facts.

I don't really have a conviction on political name-calling as such, as my view is most of the political class are in it to enrich themselves or their clan. They debase themselves daily and have no shame in doing so, its a means to an end for that group. (For the most part, there are a few good ones)

I do find it curious that the Right polices itself constantly on language or any other issue that its members find lacking in dignity while those who oppose it have absolutely no limits on itself or the tools it uses to gain power.

We already know there's a wide range of ages on SF. Not surprising that maturity levels vary as well.

quote:

Originally posted by soflaac:
I do find it curious that the Right polices itself constantly ....

In all seriousness, in general we really are better than they are.

The leadership of the Left has consciously adopted tactics such as deliberate distortions, falsehoods, and attacks on the unimportant personal characteristics of their opponents—all while also accusing us of being the “divisive” ones. And as a consequence their unthinking minions believe that they are also the things to do. On the Right, however, there has been much less of that, and it often leads to frustrations and accusations that our leaders are unwilling to wrestle in the mud as they should. I’m one who would like to see more vigorous attacks from our side, but there are plenty of bases for doing so without resorting to infantile inventions.

I never took that statement as a dig on us old folks, just a dig @ joe.

Besides, I recall that old phrase,’no matter how much you wiggle and dance, the last few drops fall in your pants.’ If Joe took
a whizz few times a day, he could be “a urine soaked relic.”

Oh well, I’ve got some fish to fry.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
In all seriousness, in general we really are better than they are.

Personal insults toward a political opponent are off the table, but questioning our side's maturity or characterizing our side's opinions as infantile are okay (if we don't like the language used). Seems a little odd, no?

There is a difference between the truth—or even sincerely held opinion based on common principles of logic and critical thinking—and pure crass invention.

No?
And if my thinking and comments are just as irrational as those based on fiction, then it just illustrates how irrational thinking begets irrational thinking, and another reason why it should be avoided in the first place.

Added: Although I find the mental imagery of the term slightly repugnant, I would have just accepted its constant use and said nothing if it were true. As I keep saying, if there’s evidence that it’s true, trot it on out for our edification. At that point I’ll just say I still find it repugnant and of no more relevance to the truly serious issues that matter today than what color eyes the man has, but I’ll at least concede that it’s valid.

And if a couple of drops are enough to “soak” someone, it would be interesting to know how large they are.

Now we're moving the goal post. Onward, ho!

Edit: So there were a couple edits to the above post after I added my comment here.....for the record, I'm not a fan of the 'lose with dignity' crowd.

Whether those of that ilk are members of my preferred political ideology group or not.

I can only infer that self-righteousness has a dignity all its own.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: soflaac,

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
On a baser level and in a more refined and cultured mind, such speech is avoided.

Profanity is the linguistic crutch of an inarticulate motherfucker.

There's a lot of illogical and irrational posts done in this and other gun boards, a lot of accusations and statements with absolutely no facts backing them up.

I've cut down my posting about some subjects simply because you can't reason with people who don't think logically and instead post emotionally, which is what I'm seeing.

Oh, and let's not forget all the new websites springing up offering up opinion as facts, and they get repeated on gun boards to refute hard data.

I've never used "urine soaked" to describe demented Joe or any of the leftists, because it's not harsh enough. I call them maggots. Of course they're not maggots, but they ARE maggots. Evidence? I don't need no stinking evidence, only illogical emotion. Btw, that double negative is done on purpose, so the grammar Nazis can go ahead and chill.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
they ARE maggots

Now see, that’s my point: Tell the obvious truth and I, anyway, am not going to call you out and object to the characterization or ask for evidence.

Added: As the devil’s or at least the maggots’ advocate, though, I will point out that at one time maggots were reportedly used by a few perceptive doctors to clean up gangrenous wounds because they would eat only the dead flesh. The crowd of which we’re speaking, though, have never provided even such a limited benefit. I would be tempted to call them ticks, except that ticks fall off when they’ve sucked out enough blood to satisfy them.