Our current discussions and political condition raises the now-pertinent question: Which is a more accurate description, "Sleazy Slimeball" or "Slimy Sleazebag"? While in modern discourse "Sleazy" and "slimy" are used virtually interchangeably and often considered synonyms, they came at that position from different directions. Sleaze originally meant "of poor quality, cheap, of thin cloth", it developed over time to mean "cheap" as in cheap construction, "easy" as a woman of poor virtue easily won, or pertaining to someone whose morals or honesty were questionable, as in a politician or used car salesman. Slime was originally related to a condition of viscosity of a mucous substance produced by various organisms, such as fish, slugs, and fungi, it came to mean any moist viscous fluid, esp when noxious or unpleasant, or more generically, dirty, fetid or filthy.
So, a "sleazebag" is a collection of garments, or later, conditions, that are of questionable derivation and low quality, and a "slimeball" is a collection of viscous, noxious fluids. Thus, a "sleazy slimeball" would be a collection of noxious elements contained in a shell of low quality, questionable qualities, whereas a "slimy sleazebag" would be more accurately described as a collection of low quality attributes covered by a veneer of viscous, noxious fluids. Which is a better description of your favorite miscreant?
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich