I have to say that when I stopped reading his posts with any sense of seriousness, the threads have become very enjoyable reading. Amusing, even. I’m fearful though that the ward attendant will find a new crayon soon, and he’ll forget about the computer.
No, all we have established is that “bedwetter,” like “wingnut” and “moonbat,” is what semanticist and Senator S.I. Hayakawa classified as a “snarl word.”
The Big German industrialists gave the power to Hitler and in exchange they survived the war, the so-called nationalization was a sham.
The previous Wiemar Republic nationalized the banks, Hitler gave the banks back to the former owners. (as long as they had rid of any Jewish board members)
Virtually everything what the Nazis said that they were going to do for the German workers was a sham. The reality was that they where the extreme right wing and they defeated the German communist party on the way to power.
You are just swallowing propaganda, and out of date propaganda to boot.
*Yeah, funny thing, the German Social Democrat Party (SDP) were the socialists and they did not use the word socialist on their name, I tell you, if a “great mind” like billy bob_co had been there he would have missed it, unfortunately Hitler did not:
That’s as may be, but it wasn’t much of an answer, was it?
You say it represents a notion that, from a conservative point of view, liberals are fearful, and as an example, you offer that some liberals are so fearful of violence, they want to ban video games.
However, as Fear Itself pointed out (despite the always useful commentary of Sarahfeena), there is a strain of conservative thought that wishes to ban Harry Potter for promoting Satan. (For the record, I think it’s stupid and pointless to ban either video games or Harry Potter).
So on one side, we have people who are so fearful of something that doesn’t exist, and whose harmfulness therefore can not be demonstrated, that they want to ban something that doesn’t depict it (Satan is never mentioned in HP to my knowledge), characterizing as “fearful” people on the other side who are so fearful of something that does exist, and whose harmfulness can be demonstrated, that they want to ban something that does depict it.
I don’t get how those on the first side can justify such a notion, unless they can be characterized as “bottomlessly hypocritical”.
I think it was a perfectly fine answer to the OP’s question. Maybe you need some “useful commentary,” because you are once again missing the fact that smiling bandit wasn’t necessarily defending or justifying the phrase, but merely trying to explain the conservative thinking behind it. The OP merely asked WHY the phrase is used. And smiling bandit is right…his is the only post so far that has actually answered that question.
Except that it’s an answer that begs the question, so it’s not particularly explanatory.
“Because liberals are such fearful people some of them want to ban video games for their depicted violence” isn’t an explanation a reasonable person can accept if that is what is proferred by people who share a political philosophy with those so fearful they wish to ban children’s books because of their undepicted Satanism. Are the Harry-Potter-haters also referred to as “bedwetters” by the same people who use the term to refer to the Left? Some evidence of that might go toward making it all make sense.
I’ve already acknowledged that smiling bandit tried to answer the question. Doesn’t stop it from being a shitty answer.
Also, what’s this about liberals wanting to ban video games? Since when is Jack Thompson a liberal? Most of the censorious people out there seem pretty conservative to me.
You are confusing the messenger with the message. If you don’t agree with the thinking, that’s one thing. But that doesn’t mean that smiling bandit didn’t give an accurate description of the thinking, however flawed that thinking may be.
If “bedwetters” is a term applicable to “people so fearful of something that some of them want to ban anything suggesting it”, then both groups I mentioned would have the epithet applied to them. If that isn’t the case, then either there’s nothing going on that could be described as “thinking”, flawed or otherwise, or there’s some other reason for the term.
That only works if you mistake Hillary Clinton for a Liberal.
I have no idea what you are disagreeing with. smiling bandit gave an explanation for what the term “liberal bedwetters” is supposed to mean. He never mentioned anything about conservative bedwetters, or whether the term should apply to them, too…since that wasn’t the subject of the OP.
Which is quite different from the actual question posed in the OP: **Why are liberals referred to as “bedwetters”? ** smiling bandit gave an answer that presupposes (as does the OP) that “bedwetter” refers to liberals, implying that only liberals exhibit the fear that merits such an appellation. The reality, of course, is that there are such people in all political philosophies, so it is indeed a “Begging the Question” fallacy.
Yes, a poster in another thread taught me that she’s much too far to the left to be considered a liberal. Also that Hitler was a rampant socialist and George W. Bush a leftist “appeaser.” But Ollie North? Great guy. A criminal, sure, but yet somehow a hero to be admired, for some reason.
I’m learning so much lately it’s becoming hard to keep up.
Hillary is such a liberal. That’s why she has expressed so much regret for her vote to back the president if he decided to go to war in Iraq, right? Oh pul-lease!
She is a centrist, unfortunately.
Don’t believe I know of any liberals who object to video games that merely include competition without violence. Can you back that claim up?
Boortz was still in high school in October of 1962 and does not have the benefit of an adult’s perspective on that period. They didn’t call it a “missile crisis” without good cause. Those of us who lived within range of the missiles saw it a little differently. So did those who realized what such a strike would cause to happen. None of the adults that I knew took their lives for granted then.