• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

President Bush: "It's unacceptable to think"


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#1 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 20 September 2006 - 12:22 AM


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/
The whole article is a good read, though a bit too long to quote in its entirety.

Bush owes us an apology

The President of the United States owes this country an apology.

It will not be offered, of course.

He does not realize its necessity.

There are now none around him who would tell him or could.

The last of them, it appears, was the very man whose letter provoked the President into the conduct, for which the apology is essential.

An apology is this President's only hope of regaining the slightest measure of confidence, of what has been, for nearly two years, a clear majority of his people.

Not "confidence" in his policies nor in his designs nor even in something as narrowly focused as which vision of torture shall prevail -- his, or that of the man who has sent him into apoplexy, Colin Powell.

In a larger sense, the President needs to regain our confidence, that he has some basic understanding of what this country represents -- of what it must maintain if we are to defeat not only terrorists, but if we are also to defeat what is ever more increasingly apparent, as an attempt to re-define the way we live here, and what we mean, when we say the word "freedom."

...

With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right.

And then there was that one, most awful phrase.

In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.

“It's unacceptable to think," he said.

It is never unacceptable to think.

And when a President says thinking is unacceptable, even on one topic, even in the heat of the moment, even in the turning of a phrase extracted from its context, he takes us toward a new and fearful path -- one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries.

That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think.


Thus the lightning flash reveals not merely a President we have already seen, the one who believes he has a monopoly on current truth. 

It now shows us a President who has decided that of all our commanders-in-chief, ever, he alone has had the knowledge necessary to alter and re-shape our inalienable rights.

This is a frightening, and a dangerous, delusion, Mr. President.

...

There needs to be an apology from the President of the United States.

And more than one.

But, Mr. Bush, the others -- for warnings unheeded five years ago, for war unjustified four years ago, for battle unprepared three years ago -- they are not weighted with the urgency and necessity of this one.

We must know that, to you, thought with which you disagree -- and even voice with which you disagree  and even action with which you disagree -- are still sacrosanct to you.

...



#2 JonesGuy

  • Guest
  • 1,183 posts
  • 8

Posted 20 September 2006 - 01:13 AM

To be fair, it was a direct response to a question; meaning that he doesn't have time to PC his words and couch them for effect.

This is the president that caused a new word "Bushisms"; I think that positing that he says what he means is a lost cause - even if it makes him look bad.

That said, a retraction would be nice.

#3 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 20 September 2006 - 01:44 AM

I agree that parsing George Bush's words for deeper meaning is an utter waste of time.
Bush is not a gifted public speaker and says lots of stupid shit. That has to be a given at this point. I don't think that fixating on particular word choices or sentence chunks is healthy or useful. All this gleeful point scoring off somebodies verbal hiccups achieves is a more contrived less spontaneous and less sincere speeches by public figures.

But then the speech is basically Keith Olberman preaching to the choir and promoting Keith Olberman the new Walther Cronkite/conscience of America. With Rathers and Brokaw gone the fake gravitas throne stands empty.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 20 September 2006 - 03:55 AM

In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.

“It's unacceptable to think," he said.


Wow.

#5 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 20 September 2006 - 08:08 AM

Did his magical-auditive-earplug-advisory-input-and-control-device work correctly that day? :)

#6 rahein

  • Guest
  • 226 posts
  • 0

Posted 20 September 2006 - 06:20 PM

Thought-Crime is on the verge of becoming real in this country. It is scary. All of the people they have arrested for 'terrorist plots' where in the pre-pre-planning stage. I am not saying that we should not be going after people before they execute a plot, but I think they should at least be capable of doing it before arrested.

Take for example the NYC tunnel bombing plot. It was just a few messages posted (bragging) online about how they could flood NYC by bombing a tunnel. Not only did they not have any explosives or plans. The idea would not have even worked. To the best of my knowledge these people disappeared and no one has heard from them since.

Now Bush is telling people that they can even THINK things. This is a free country with free speech. Everyone, especially kids, BS about that type of crap. It does not mean they are going to do it. They are free to talk all they want about it.

Just saw ‘V for Vendetta’ the other day and I have to say:

“People should not fear their governments. Governments should fear their people.

#7 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 20 September 2006 - 06:35 PM

It's unacceptable to think 1+1 =3. It's unacceptable because it's wrong. So is somebody now going to take half a sentence out of context and write an editorial about how bgwowk said that it's unacceptable to think? There is something even worse than not thinking: lying. The subject line of this thread is a lie. The quoted editorial and entire content of this thread is a response to a thought (definition of sentence: a collection of words expressing a complete thought) that Bush did not express.

#8 rahein

  • Guest
  • 226 posts
  • 0

Posted 20 September 2006 - 06:45 PM

It is perfectly acceptable to think things that are wrong. Heck GWB believes God talks to him and even THAT is acceptable speech in America. It might mean that he has some mental problems, but it is his right to think that. The separation problems with that statement are a different problem. Those deal with his action and not his thoughts.

It doesn't matter if someone was asking him if 1+1=3. He can say it is wrong, but he CAN'T tell someone that they are not allowed to think it. This is not out of context quoting. The context is America and in America you are allowed to think what you want.

#9 jaydfox

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 20 September 2006 - 06:51 PM

It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between performing an abortion and destroying an embryo to harvest stem cells.

It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between trying to save the life of an 80-year-old with colon cancer and trying to save a 12-year-old with leukemia.

It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the disenfranchisement of a white student because of an affirmative action program and the disenfranchisement of a black student because of segregation.

"It's unacceptable," a visibly angered Bush told the press, "to think there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists, who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

That is far from stating something as profoundly obvious as "It's unacceptable to think 1+1 =3."

It's not wrong, because it's a complex subject, complex enough that there are plenty of parallels between the two situations, even though there are plenty of differences. The comparison might not be exact, and indeed may be seriously flawed, but it speaks to a grain of truth.

When it becomes unacceptable to critique our own moral fiber and whether we can retain the moral high ground given the actions of this administration, we've lost one of our greatest freedoms.

There is something even worse than not thinking: lying. The subject line of this thread is a lie.

It's unacceptable to think that a man of your education and intellectual prowess could say something so ridiculous. :)

#10 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 20 September 2006 - 06:56 PM

rahein, did bgwowk say or not say

It's unacceptable to think.


Is that the thought I expressed? Is that a fair representation of the thought I expressed? Would it be fair to write a whole editorial about how I believe thinking is unacceptable?

#11 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 20 September 2006 - 07:01 PM

The Bush quote is out of context...plain and simple. You can make an argument that because he starts many sentences this way that subconsciously he doesn't want anyone to "think". But more likely he is just implying "it is wrong to think...blah...blah..blah", in an effort to contrast christian morals with other systems.

#12 jaydfox

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 20 September 2006 - 07:03 PM

BTW, I used the wrong smilie. I meant to use this one:
[tung]

Just razzin' you.

#13 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 20 September 2006 - 07:04 PM

When it becomes unacceptable to critique our own moral fiber and whether we can retain the moral high ground given the actions of this administration, we've lost one of our greatest freedoms.

Now *that* is something worth discussing, because that is what Bush actually said (or, more accurately, implied). He did not say that people shouldn't think. It's very misleading to claim that he did.

#14 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 20 September 2006 - 07:09 PM

To further illustrate my complaint, what if Bush instead said:

It's unacceptable to believe there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists, who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

Then instead of secularists editorializing against an alleged exhortation to not think, would religionists editorialize against an alleged exhortation to not believe? :)

#15 rahein

  • Guest
  • 226 posts
  • 0

Posted 20 September 2006 - 07:43 PM

bgwowk you are doing the same thing to me as you claim I am doing to you.

I did not say anything about thinking in general. Which I am sure even Bush supports, even if he does not do much of his own.

The problem I have is with the Chief Executive of the state saying that it is wrong to think a specific thought. The Chief Executive is in charge of executing the laws of the state. Him saying that it is wrong to think a specific thought, no matter what that thought is, is tantamount to saying it is ILLEAGAL to think that.

This is getting dangerously close to THOUGHT-CRIME! For someone to be punished in our constitutional democracy they have to have DONE something wrong. Thinking a specific thought is not necessary nor sufficient to be charge, held, or prosecuted by the state. This comment is not specifically about his remarks in the citied article, but to how this government is moving in general. Please refer to my example about the tunnel plotters.

We are moving into unprecedented interpretations of the law right now. Government surveillance of all its citizens means that everyone is suspect in a crime. Right now that crime may be ‘aiding terrorists’, but a future administration could build on that to include all crime. Remember that all the power you give the current president, all later presidents will have. Even if they are worse then Bush.

#16 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 20 September 2006 - 09:23 PM

He didn't say that having a particular thought should be prohibited by force. It's perfectly clear from the original context that "unacceptable" is a synonym for "abhorent," "disgusting", or "ridiculous," not a threat of force against anyone who holds the opinion. In other words, the thesis is not an acceptable basis for a rational discussion in his opinion. That's all. I find any other interpretation- interpretations that go beyond what was said in the context it was said --to be unacceptably unfair. So there! :)

#17

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 20 September 2006 - 10:16 PM

Freudian slip.

#18 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 21 September 2006 - 12:37 AM

Freudian slip.


That would imply some hidden intellect elsewhere in his brain.

#19 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 September 2006 - 03:10 AM

Thought-Crime is on the verge of becoming real in this country.


(editted out the most vulgar rant you can possibly imagine, because the admin pussies cry and cry about these kind of things)

Edited by hankconn, 21 September 2006 - 03:21 AM.


#20 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 September 2006 - 03:33 AM

Man... conservatives are stupid, but liberals are suicidal.

#21 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 September 2006 - 03:42 AM

That is, conservatives might be against evolution in theory (some of them), but they certainly understand the principle of natural selection.

Weakness = death.

#22 jaydfox

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 21 September 2006 - 03:44 AM

Weakness = death.

And indiscriminate cruelty and lack of honor and lack of justice = loss of moral high ground = loss of support of borderline nations among allies and moderates among enemies = death

#23

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 21 September 2006 - 03:44 AM

(editted out the most vulgar rant you can possibly imagine, because the admin pussies cry and cry about these kind of things)

If you want to continue to post here, and this goes for the free speech fora as well, pay attention to our policy on ad hominem attacks. This is a formal warning.

#24 jaydfox

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 21 September 2006 - 03:50 AM

Hank, you're a singularitarian. What would we be teaching an AI, as it studies the history of the human race and of its most recent poltical and social values, if we compromise our values, honor, integrity, respect for human life, and respect for the rule of law, to gain at best a very marginal advantage in a nebulous war? The degree of freedoms we are willing to curtail, the degree of compromise on our values we are willing to make, is not commensurate with the gains the President claims to be seeking. We are setting a dangerous precedent. If the returns were better, it might be worth it, from an objective standpoint. But the ROI on the President's policies is pathetically low, and we are digging our own graves in the long term, despite the tiny short term gains we might be realizing.

#25 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 September 2006 - 03:52 AM

indiscriminate cruelty

Take a look at World War Two... we would be living in the dark ages right now if not for fire bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Tokyo and elsewhere, and dropping multiple nuclear bombs on civilian targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It sucks, bad. Sometimes you have throw out a little baby with the bathwater.

Can you imagine if Americans had the same reaction (and the same weak, weak leadership) of today, back in World War Two?

#26 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 September 2006 - 03:54 AM

Hank, you're a singularitarian.

Ah, you make reference to the other "We're F***ed" front.

If I'm wrong about how screwed we are when AGI hits, well, shit, laugh at me afterwards. But until then, I've got good reason to believe "We're F***ed"

#27 jaydfox

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 21 September 2006 - 04:00 AM

Hank, we don't live in the 1940's anymore. You didn't have the world press embedded in the various armies of the world, broadcasting pictures nightly of the disfigured and burned and blown-up bodies of women and children. The Bush administration has been very successful so far in suppressing the press, so he's actually been pretty lucky so far.

And at any rate, we honored the Geneva Conventions in WWII. For the most part, we did our best to maintain the moral high ground. The current situation with the treatment of "enemy combatants" reeks. If I as an American am appalled by it, just imagine what fodder it is for those seeking to turn the moderates, the undecideds, against us. Every time a report comes out about the torture of suspected terrorists and terrorist supporters, tens, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of moderates and undecideds decide we are getting what we deserve, and we lose their financial and political support. In the nations of our allies, we lose sympathy and cooperation. In the nations of our enemies, we only fortify their resolve to beat us, or at the least to impede the war on terrorism.

And for what? Have we gained enough from our policies to justify it? I haven't seen a compelling case made that the ROI is even close to being worth it.

#28 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 September 2006 - 04:08 AM

Hah, I'm not defending the approach the government has taken, whatsoever.

(1) Border security and our nation's intelligence program (ESPECIALLY wiretaps, etc) are pivotal.
(2) Conservatives at least half-assedly support these.
(3) Liberals are far more worried about global warming and other tertiary crap, and are so concerned about optimizing their political attacks that they end up opposing defending themselves at all.

#29

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 21 September 2006 - 04:22 AM

Take a look at World War Two... we would be living in the dark ages right now if not for fire bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Tokyo and elsewhere, and dropping multiple nuclear bombs on civilian targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It sucks, bad. Sometimes you have throw out a little baby with the bathwater.

Can you imagine if Americans had the same reaction (and the same weak, weak leadership) of today, back in World War Two?

They could have made their point just as easily by dropping a bomb on an uninhabitable or military-only target as a proof of concept. The use of nuclear weapons against a civilian population was a war crime that the United States has yet to be held accountable for. More than 200,000 people, mostly civilians, perished on account of the two nuclear bombs that exploded in the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

#30 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 September 2006 - 04:26 AM

And I love the hordes of liberals that talk about Bush "lying about Iraq" and all such nonsense.

http://www.freedomag...wmd_quotes.html

The lies and hypocrisy are astounding.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users