Bush invokes Godwin's Law, loses war on terror automatically (1 Viewer)

Captain Gh3y

Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
4,153
Location
falling from grace with god
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Bush compares Bin Laden to Hitler



Bush compares Bin Laden to Hitler

President Bush (31 Aug)
President Bush has been defending his Middle East policy

Bush speech
President George W Bush has compared Osama Bin Laden to Lenin and Hitler in a speech to US military officers.

"Underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake," he said as he quoted extensively from Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda figures.

He said the world had ignored the writings of Lenin and Hitler "and paid a terrible price" - adding the world must not to do the same with al-Qaeda.

Mr Bush has been defending his security strategy as mid-term elections loom.

His speech on Tuesday - the day following the US Labor Day holiday - coincided with the country's traditional start date for election campaigning.

"Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," he said.

But, he added, the US and its allies could be confident of victory in "the great ideological struggle of the 21st Century" because "we have seen free nations defeat terror before".

Anti-terror strategy

The speech covered many of the same themes as his first address in his current five-speech series defending his administration's so-called Global War on Terror.

He outlined a newly-updated "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" document, which includes objectives such as preventing future attacks and denying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

"The best way to protect America is to stay on the offence," he said.


In the 1920s a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan superstate in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews - The world ignored Hitler's words and paid a terrible price
George W Bush

Other goals in the US strategy include denying terrorists control of any nation or area they could use as a refuge - an aim he linked to the continued US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with less than a week until America marks the fifth anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks, he again portrayed US policy in Iraq as part of a broad strategy to maker the country safer.

He defended the controversial Patriot Act and terrorist surveillance programme, which involves the government listening in on calls between the US and foreign locations without the warrant which is normally required.

"If al-Qaeda is calling somebody in America, we need to know why in order to stop attacks," he said to the applause of his audience.


...

"As a war grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that war is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever war was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on war length?
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
123
Location
In deserted outskirts of sinister reasoning, thou
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
What a stupid way to praise a stupid law, having no relevance. If I used bush's stupidity to promote genocide would that be warranted? The only reason anyone would even consider something so preposterous is due to the fact that everyone knows bush lost. Find the proof and losses and then you will have a better argument then some stupid internet law.

How about his breachs in the American constitution, and powers of authority? By allowing the CIA to monitor people activities without a warrant from a magistrate then there is enough for him to be impeached. (Clinton was impeached for infidelity) even though he was a relatively good president.

Point being. Why hop onto some weak bandwagon to come to assumptions? It's hardly ever relevant in human psychology or philosophy as no to things are exactly alike. (Even if you had two identical pieces of paper, 1cm apart, they're still different because of their positioning.) The one on the left is the one people will assume to be 'right'.

My Law: Everytime somebody resorts to violence and assumptions they've run out of constructive ideas. (It may be true but what's the point of it all?)

My Other Uber Law: When two participants decide to slowly accept each others arguments and try to resolve the argument by 'agreeing to disagree' in a voluntary unspoke pact, they both have run out of constructive ideas.

My Final Law: People who need straight forward answers and equations for everything will never be able to truely evaluate anything properly. If you need to find emotive language to find bias, then you haven't evaluated it properly. If you need to find the x=o to find the y, then you fail at math. If you need to remember i before e except after c, then you fail at literature.

Basically, YOU FAIL!
 

toots

New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
4
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
The Logical One said:
What a stupid way to praise a stupid law, having no relevance. If I used bush's stupidity to promote genocide would that be warranted? The only reason anyone would even consider something so preposterous is due to the fact that everyone knows bush lost. Find the proof and losses and then you will have a better argument then some stupid internet law.

How about his breachs in the American constitution, and powers of authority? By allowing the CIA to monitor people activities without a warrant from a magistrate then there is enough for him to be impeached. (Clinton was impeached for infidelity) even though he was a relatively good president.

Point being. Why hop onto some weak bandwagon to come to assumptions? It's hardly ever relevant in human psychology or philosophy as no to things are exactly alike. (Even if you had two identical pieces of paper, 1cm apart, they're still different because of their positioning.) The one on the left is the one people will assume to be 'right'.

My Law: Everytime somebody resorts to violence and assumptions they've run out of constructive ideas. (It may be true but what's the point of it all?)

My Other Uber Law: When two participants decide to slowly accept each others arguments and try to resolve the argument by 'agreeing to disagree' in a voluntary unspoke pact, they both have run out of constructive ideas.

My Final Law: People who need straight forward answers and equations for everything will never be able to truely evaluate anything properly. If you need to find emotive language to find bias, then you haven't evaluated it properly. If you need to find the x=o to find the y, then you fail at math. If you need to remember i before e except after c, then you fail at literature.

Basically, YOU FAIL!
i totally agree with you
 

RTTTYTR

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
180
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
The Logical One said:
What a stupid way to praise a stupid law, having no relevance. If I used bush's stupidity to promote genocide would that be warranted? The only reason anyone would even consider something so preposterous is due to the fact that everyone knows bush lost. Find the proof and losses and then you will have a better argument then some stupid internet law.

How about his breachs in the American constitution, and powers of authority? By allowing the CIA to monitor people activities without a warrant from a magistrate then there is enough for him to be impeached. (Clinton was impeached for infidelity) even though he was a relatively good president.

Point being. Why hop onto some weak bandwagon to come to assumptions? It's hardly ever relevant in human psychology or philosophy as no to things are exactly alike. (Even if you had two identical pieces of paper, 1cm apart, they're still different because of their positioning.) The one on the left is the one people will assume to be 'right'.

My Law: Everytime somebody resorts to violence and assumptions they've run out of constructive ideas. (It may be true but what's the point of it all?)

My Other Uber Law: When two participants decide to slowly accept each others arguments and try to resolve the argument by 'agreeing to disagree' in a voluntary unspoke pact, they both have run out of constructive ideas.

My Final Law: People who need straight forward answers and equations for everything will never be able to truely evaluate anything properly. If you need to find emotive language to find bias, then you haven't evaluated it properly. If you need to find the x=o to find the y, then you fail at math. If you need to remember i before e except after c, then you fail at literature.

Basically, YOU FAIL!

With impeachment, doesnt it require lieing to the US Congress or Supreme Court? Has Bush done that (He needs to have known he was lieing at the time)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top