the blind squirrel strikes again

[del]

i really never thought i'd agree with kim jong-un on anything but he nailed it

SEOUL, South Korea — Responding directly for the first time to President Trump’s threat at the United Nations to destroy nuclear-armed North Korea, its leader called Mr. Trump a “mentally deranged U.S. dotard” on Friday and vowed the “highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history.”

The rejoinder by the leader, Kim Jong-un, who is about half as old as Mr. Trump, 71, added to the lexicon of Mr. Kim’s choice of insults in the escalating bombast between the two.
“A frightened dog barks louder,” Mr. Kim said in a statement, referring to Mr. Trump’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday in which he vowed to annihilate North Korea if the United States were forced to defend itself or its allies against it.

“He is surely a rogue and a gangster fond of playing with fire, rather than a politician,” Mr. Kim said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/w...T.nav=top-news

[Standing Wolf]

The two idiots who do the afternoon show on my local news-talk radio station were baffled by this story yesterday. They kept saying, "What's a dotard?" - pronouncing it "DOUGH-tard". "Is it a doughy retard?" I was literally yelling at the radio, "It's 'DAH-terd', you morons - a perfectly good, if somewhat archaic way of saying "feeble old person".

This is the same station where, several years ago, during a discussion of a story about a teacher who was being shunned by her colleagues, the news-lady piped up with "She's a piranha!"

[del]

The two idiots who do the afternoon show on my local news-talk radio station were baffled by this story yesterday. They kept saying, "What's a dotard?" - pronouncing it "DOUGH-tard". "Is it a doughy retard?" I was literally yelling at the radio, "It's 'DAH-terd', you morons - a perfectly good, if somewhat archaic way of saying "feeble old person".

This is the same station where, several years ago, during a discussion of a story about a teacher who was being shunned by her colleagues, the news-lady piped up with "She's a piranha!"

[DGUtley]

Remember when Clinton threatened to destroy NK? I'm sure you were all equally outraged by his dotard comment? http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/wo...rth-korea.html

[del]

Remember when Clinton threatened to destroy NK? I'm sure you were all equally outraged by his dotard comment? http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/wo...rth-korea.html

who's outraged?


your boy is indeed a *mentally deranged u.s. dotard*.

thanks again

[Safety]

Remember when Clinton threatened to destroy NK? I'm sure you were all equally outraged by his dotard comment? http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/wo...rth-korea.html

Tu quoque? Does that mean it's ok to use now?

[Captain Obvious]

More proof the left hates America by supporting our enemies.

I bet you guys are hoping they nuke a conservative state.

[DGUtley]

Tu quoque? Does that mean it's ok to use now?

I haven't decided whether it's ok to use it now, but probably not. I get frustrated with Donald's less than presidential demeanor. These things are better said behind the scenes or not at all. The point is: the outrage and/or ridicule was absent when the friend of the poster did it. I think though, that you knew all this; yes?

I don't think "Tu quoque?" is appropriate here, b.t.w. I think you've misapplied the term; but that's just me.

[Common]

Sad day when any american takes the side of a Kim and uses it to denigrate our president.

[Safety]

I haven't decided whether it's ok to use it now, but probably not. I get frustrated with Donald's less than presidential demeanor. These things are better said behind the scenes or not at all. The point is: the outrage and/or ridicule was absent when the friend of the poster did it. I think though, that you knew all this; yes?

I don't think "Tu quoque?" is appropriate here, b.t.w. I think you've misapplied the term; but that's just me.

I aim to please, so here is the definition and the reason it was applied.

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, also /tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

So, now that we have the definition, the reason I applied it in response to your post was this statement here..."I'm sure you were all equally outraged by his dotard comment?" Now, I'm sure I don't need to actually highlight the part that makes the label of "tu quoque" apropos, so I'll just chalk this one up as Safety was correct, again.