Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: State of the Union Response

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    State of the Union Response

    I can't say it better than this guy, so I'll just him talk.

    I will ask you, folks, however, to listen, think hard on this issues, and take action with your Congressmen.

    That, and voting Obama out of office next year is the only way we're going to stop the derailment of our nation.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Lokster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Unincorporated Jefferson County
    Posts
    126
    Ahhh.....the sweet sound of reason....

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Not bad. I only watched about the first third.

    I would like to point out something for any who have not encountered a certain idea. Food for thought.

    In the video, the speaker remarks that the president does not understand what makes great the country he was elected to lead.

    Focus on that last clause for a moment. "...country he was elected to lead."

    There is a huge problem with that idea. It says that an individual has no existence apart from the state. That the state is his social existence--society. And, that the leader of the state is the leader of society.

    This is a very dangerous idea. It is the underlying justification for so much of what is done by government, not just in this country.

    When I vote for president, I am voting only for the person who leads the executive branch of government. That's all I want him to lead. Nothing more. Certainly not the nation. Certainly not the free world. Such would be a contradiction in terms.

    The only leaders I need are my work supervisor and that chain of command (in so many words), and "thought" leaders who I will seek on my own by reading the likes of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and like-minded men and women today.

    Besides, government cannot possibly be leadership, since it is based on coercion and force. Coercion is not leadership, its coercion.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-29-2011 at 11:09 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Lokster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Unincorporated Jefferson County
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Not bad. I only watched about the first third.

    I would like to point out something for any who have not encountered a certain idea. Food for thought.

    In the video, the speaker remarks that the president does not understand what makes great the country he was elected to lead.

    Focus on that last clause for a moment. "...country he was elected to lead."

    There is a huge problem with that idea. It says that an individual has no existence apart from the state. That the state is his social existence--society. And, that the leader of the state is the leader of society.

    This is a very dangerous idea. It is the underlying justification for so much of what is done by government, not just in this country.

    When I vote for president, I am voting only for the person who leads the executive branch of government. That's all I want him to lead. Nothing more. Certainly not the nation. Certainly not the free world. Such would be a contradiction in terms.

    The only leaders I need are my work supervisor and that chain of command (in so many words), and "thought" leaders who I will seek on my own by reading the likes of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and like-minded men and women today.

    Besides, government cannot possibly be leadership, since it is based on coercion and force. Coercion is not leadership, its coercion.
    I see your point, Citizen. It's amazing that what to me seemed like such a subtle statement has such dangerous implications. I doubt Whittle even realized what he meant or implied when he said that.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Lokster View Post
    I see your point, Citizen. It's amazing that what to me seemed like such a subtle statement has such dangerous implications. I doubt Whittle even realized what he meant or implied when he said that.
    Nah. That is just overparsing. We are individuals and a unit. (E pluribus unum.) That unit was once great and can be again. No statement was made about the relative import of the individuals or the unit, which could be alarming. Someone (not you) is just feeding his preconceived notions by seeing something in the words that just isn't there. The poster inferred--and he was reaching. The speaker did not imply.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Lokster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Unincorporated Jefferson County
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Nah. That is just overparsing. We are individuals and a unit. (E pluribus unum.) That unit was once great and can be again. No statement was made about the relative import of the individuals or the unit, which could be alarming. Someone (not you) is just feeding his preconceived notions by seeing something in the words that just isn't there. The poster inferred--and he was reaching. The speaker did not imply.
    I don't know about it being just overparsing. I think it goes to show how important words are. Words do have meaning and IMO Whittle could have said what he meant in a way that implied that if the "unit" is once again to be great we will not have the President or any future President to thank for it. The President is only allowed to do so much, I think we can all agree on that, and saying the President or any can, will or should lead us into greatness is wrong on many different levels IMO.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Lokster View Post
    I don't know about it being just overparsing. I think it goes to show how important words are. Words do have meaning and IMO Whittle could have said what he meant in a way that implied that if the "unit" is once again to be great we will not have the President or any future President to thank for it. The President is only allowed to do so much, I think we can all agree on that, and saying the President or any can, will or should lead us into greatness is wrong on many different levels IMO.
    Words have meaning. If you take what he said literally, according to the meaning of the words he used, he was not placing the country over the people. That assumption was purely on the part of his critic.

    I've made my point. Take the last word if you wish. I'm moving on.
    Last edited by eye95; 01-30-2011 at 05:07 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Lokster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Unincorporated Jefferson County
    Posts
    126
    At about 30 seconds after it begins, Whittle states that:

    " the Chief Executive of the United States does not, in any significant way, understand what makes the country he has been elected to lead so remarkable."

    I simply cannot find anywhere in Article II of the Constitution that declares that the President has the authority to "lead the country" and I think that's a good thing. That's all.

    Although it does sound like something Hamilton might have argued for; sure, it's just the "lead the country clause", completely harmless; is that a rabbit over there?
    Last edited by Lokster; 01-30-2011 at 05:55 PM. Reason: sorry, I couldn't resist

  9. #9
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779


    The Wright Brothers on the other hand succeeded where the Government and Langley failed because they were free from regulation.
    Sorry. I call BS on your link at around 1:51 in.

    Just more party propaganda.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  10. #10
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Lokster View Post
    Ahhh.....the sweet sound of reason....
    Did you and me watch the same freaking video linked! Sound of reason...where? He was not reasoning anything, he was making politically bias statements. The guy on the video is a freaking right-wing tool.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  11. #11
    Regular Member Lokster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Unincorporated Jefferson County
    Posts
    126
    Beretta92FSLady- God must have added a little extra sugar when He made you, cause baby, you are sweet!

  12. #12
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Lokster View Post
    Beretta92FSLady- God must have added a little extra sugar when He made you, cause baby, you are sweet!
    LMAO! That is awesome
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Lokster View Post
    I don't know about it being just overparsing. I think it goes to show how important words are. Words do have meaning and IMO Whittle could have said what he meant in a way that implied that if the "unit" is once again to be great we will not have the President or any future President to thank for it. The President is only allowed to do so much, I think we can all agree on that, and saying the President or any can, will or should lead us into greatness is wrong on many different levels IMO.
    Of course it is not overparsing. Spend a little time thinking about it, looking for other manifestations, etc.

    For example, how many times have we seen someone advocating this or that law or regulation to fix this or that social problem. Whoa! Wait a minute. The underlying premise is that government is the proper method for fixing social problems. Ever heard the charge "social engineering" leveled at certain liberals, and maybe even some conservatives? To hell with literature like The Scarlet Letter, A Modest Proposal, and Uncle Tom's Cabin--society's authors inspiring society to solve social problems. Phuck philosphers. Clip the clergy. Just turn it over to government. This goes right along with making the president the leader of the nation.

    Lets look at it from another angle, too. It doesn't matter whether the president's ideas are right or best. Since he is also nominated "the leader of the country", as some would have it, his ideas are the ones that we are asked/persuaded/bully-pulpited to follow. Now, qui bono? That is to ask, "Who benefits? Who benefits from this idea that the president is the "leader of the nation?" Who benefits from society following the president's lead? (Keep in mind how putrid the government can be--lobbyists, back room dealing, ear-marks. Think about this president's State of the Union comment about energy independence and ethanol subsidies the next time you buy some frozen corn at an outrageous price.)

    So, who nominated the leader of the executive branch as the leader of the nation? A prosy press trying to sell papers? A preacher? (I came across such in relation to Lincoln, telling his flock they should follow the president. Haven't followed up on the cite, though) I'm sorry, I don't see press, flowery prose, or anybody mentioned in the Constitution as having the authority to elevate the president to "leader of the nation" or "leader of the free world."

    He's not an ancient Hebrew king on a four-year rotation, you know.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-31-2011 at 07:39 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Lokster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Unincorporated Jefferson County
    Posts
    126
    Oh, I know.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I heard snippets of the president's address today about Egypt.

    I tried to memorize the line, but I can't quote it exactly anymore. Here is the gist:

    "The rest of the world cannot select the Egyptians' leaders for them. They should do it for themselves." The word "leaders" was definitely used in both the context of the government officials to be selected, and the context of "democracy".

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Oh, boy. Have I been slow.

    A very obvious ne plus ultra of a government leader being also the leader of the nation: Dear Leader Kim Jong il. A communist society--state and society combined to the max.
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-03-2011 at 11:03 PM.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I would like to point out something for any who have not encountered a certain idea. Food for thought.

    In the video, the speaker remarks that the president does not understand what makes great the country he was elected to lead.

    Focus on that last clause for a moment. "...country he was elected to lead."

    There is a huge problem with that idea. It says that an individual has no existence apart from the state. That the state is his social existence--society. And, that the leader of the state is the leader of society.

    This is a very dangerous idea. It is the underlying justification for so much of what is done by government, not just in this country.

    When I vote for president, I am voting only for the person who leads the executive branch of government. That's all I want him to lead. Nothing more. Certainly not the nation.
    I think you hit the nail on the head, Citizen. For some unfathomable reason, Obama mistakenly believes he is the "leader" of our nation. He's not. He's chief of the executive branch. We also elect representatives and senators, who occupy the second of the three branches of our system of government. He can veto their bills, but they can override his veto. SCOTUS can declare a bill unconstitutional, but Congress can amend the Constitution.

    Three branches. All of them lead, but no branch, certainly no individual, is the "leader of our country." They usually work together, but they often work at odds with one another.

    The only leaders I need are my work supervisor and that chain of command (in so many words), and "thought" leaders who I will seek on my own by reading the likes of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and like-minded men and women today.
    They are the true leaders, as are the men and women throughout society who rise to their maximum and accomplish the unbelievable.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    SNIP I think you hit the nail on the head, Citizen.
    Thank you. Credit belongs to others, though.

    The big question that throws things into stark relief is, "why would society need a leader or leaders in the first place?"

    Of course, the answer is, "society doesn't." I don't need a leader to tell me what products to buy, which products to produce, with who to associate, to which charity to donate--just make a list of everything you do day in and day out. No leader needed.

    Now, government does not need to lead. It has compulsion and force--no leadership necessary as far as society goes.

    Which prompts the question, then what's all this "leader of the nation" stuff all about?

    At this point, I'm thinking it is intended to persuade or induce a certain gullible segment of the population to listen and go along with the dear leaders' ideas, so those ideas can be enacted into law, at which point government can switch over to force and compulsion.

    ETA: Anybody know of a philosophical text that already addresses these points? I can go around in circles all day trying to think this through, but I'm betting others already have.
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-04-2011 at 10:48 PM.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Leader is not the same as ruler. Leader does not mean in charge.

    It means a person who provides leadership. We expect our president to be a leader.

    That being said, a person in a leadership role does not have to be followed. And I would not follow our current president anywhere.

    Too much pointless parsing going on here.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Leader is not the same as ruler. Leader does not mean in charge.

    It means a person who provides leadership. We expect our president to be a leader.

    That being said, a person in a leadership role does not have to be followed. And I would not follow our current president anywhere.

    Too much pointless parsing going on here.
    Rather than dismissing with superficial comments, why not explain where the analysis is wrong.

    What has me wondering is why you even bothered to post the second time. Clearly something about this bugs you. Or, is it perhaps me. I don't believe you are so cranky you would actually be bothered by mere "overparsing."

    You could start your explanations with why a free society needs a "leader of the nation."
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-05-2011 at 01:34 AM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The word "leader" always bugged me too. I always like to point out, I am not a sheep or a dog that needs to be lead.

    They are supposed to be "representatives". Bound by the restraints of the constitution.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Lokster View Post
    Although it does sound like something Hamilton might have argued for; sure, it's just the "lead the country clause", completely harmless; is that a rabbit over there?
    eye95 is worshipful of Hamilton and the rest of his Federalist authoritarians. He's even admitted to disregarding the anti-Federalists outright.

    Citizen's post was insightful and its notions are important.
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-05-2011 at 12:04 PM.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Rather than dismissing with superficial comments, why not explain where the analysis is wrong.

    What has me wondering is why you even bothered to post the second time. Clearly something about this bugs you. Or, is it perhaps me. I don't believe you are so cranky you would actually be bothered by mere "overparsing."

    You could start your explanations with why a free society needs a "leader of the nation."
    eye95 is in a constant struggle to reconcile his need for authority and a strong rule of law with his strong dislike for laws that he doesn't support and politicians like Obama.

    The result of this struggle is his very strange posting record here on OCDO.

  24. #24
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    eye95 is in a constant struggle to reconcile his need for authority and a strong rule of law with his strong dislike for laws that he doesn't support and politicians like Obama.

    The result of this struggle is his very strange posting record here on OCDO.

    A riddle, wrapped in mystery, inside an enigma..... moving on.....
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 02-06-2011 at 04:53 AM.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    A riddle, wrapped in mystery, inside an enigma..... moving on.....
    Oh, maybe not so much of one after all. He actually said something earlier that I missed the first time. Here it is:

    "We are individuals and a unit. (E pluribus unum.) That unit was once great and can be again."

    Now, I think I might understand better what's bugging him about this discussion. It would seem that he actually does believe that society and state are one and the same.

    Yet, rather than expressly contradict the idea I put forth for consideration, he focuses on overparsing.

    Never mind the fact that E Pluribus Unum refers to the several sovereign state governments partially combining under one federal government in 1789 with the ratification of the constitution, not the combining of the societies in those states into one society.

    It stands to reason that a society will have its own government viewed in relation to other societies, but that in no way necessitates that the state is the leader of its society.
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-06-2011 at 04:24 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •