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.

Ahhh.....the sweet sound of reason....

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.

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Lokster said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Lokster said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

The Wright Brothers on the other hand succeeded where the Government and Langley failed because they were free from regulation.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I call BS on your link at around 1:51 in.

Just more party propaganda.

Lokster said:

Ahhh.....the sweet sound of reason....

Click to expand...

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.

Beretta92FSLady- God must have added a little extra sugar when He made you, cause baby, you are sweet!

Lokster said:

Beretta92FSLady- God must have added a little extra sugar when He made you, cause baby, you are sweet!

Click to expand...

LMAO! That is awesome

Lokster said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Oh, I know.

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".

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.

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

They are the true leaders, as are the men and women throughout society who rise to their maximum and accomplish the unbelievable.

since9 said:

SNIP I think you hit the nail on the head, Citizen.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."