[tw]

Originally Posted by Flint

Is there a "Godwin's Law"-type definition for when you turn a not-about-Bush thread into an about-Bush thread?

Both events go right to the heart of each person's morality and ability to think logically; ignore silly emotions. Both events involve a same fundamental grasp of reality. Where is the difference between pre-emption at a presidential level and pre-emption on your own sidewalk? Both events challenge your morality, test your ability to decipher reality from emotional bias, and imply whether you are an extremist or an honest, decent, intelligent, sane, and secure person.

Would those so extremist as to justify unilateral international invasion also sanction gn use to defend a sidewalk? In both cases, use of deadly force was warranted only by a perceived and fictional threat. Why must I lay out the irony step by step?

B) he says they didn't threaten him directly, but that he didn't know their intentions, either.

That is a threat? Of course not. Those are events that might precede a threat. Same reasoning, ironically, justified 'Pearl Harboring' of Iraq and is currently being used to declare war on a 'worldwide network of international terrorists'. An honest person cannot, for one minute, ignore that rancid reality - the sardonic similarities of both events. In both cases, a threat did/does not exist. But one with a big gun entertained his fears; speculated the existence of a fictional threat.

Again, I should not have to demonstrate the sardonic similarity of both events nor detail how Cellar dwellers respond to similar events. Some think logically perceive the irony - immediately. Same irony might escape those who respond first with emotion. An irony so obvious that this post should be unnecessary.