To all ignorant Americans re "commander in chief".

[LynnTheDem]

Now really, ya oughta know this already. In fact, you should have known this way back in elementary school.

If yer NOT MILITARY then you do NOT have a "commander in chief".

FACT.


Now for all those ignorant Americans (and yes I mean 99% of the rightwingnuttery), ya wanna have a commander in chief, then GUESS WHAT! YOU CAN!

Just fill out this form, and you too can have a commander in chief! Yes it's that simple. Just like you! And your commander in chief!
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf

Enjoy! :hi:

[Fridays Child]

1. That's what I like to see around here...

Thoughtful acts of kindness to our friends on the right. :evilgrin:

[leftchick]

3. nah!

I like rubbing their noses in their own shit! But that is just me!

:)

[LynnTheDem]

4. What can I say...I like to help!

And if the MFing rightwingnuts want a commander in chief so badly, well let's help them have a commander in chief, I say!

And I truly hope they do their very best in fighting & dying for their beloved commander in chief's pile of lies. I really do. :)

[unblock]

2. damn straight! the president works for us!

well, not the chimp in the oval office, but you know what i mean.

[SeattleGirl]

7. Yes, he does, but unfortunately, most people don't understand that

Not only is Bush taking all kinds of power that is not his to take, a lot of people in this country are HANDING it to him.

[BlooInBloo]

5. I think we'd be better off letting that one go....

Since there's another sense in which it makes perfect sense, and is completely true.

He's my CiC in the same sense that a baskeball coach says "Billy is my team captain".

This doesn't mean that the coach takes orders from Billy, it just says that Billy heads up the basketball team.

gw is (unfortuntely) the electorate's CiC doesn't mean that the electorate takes orders from gw, it just says that gw heads up the military team.

I see nothing at all odd about that - it's a common usage.

[Kurovski]

8. A president doesn't "command" us.

So I respectfully disagree.

Saying "THE Commander in Chief" is fine, "my" is inaccurate and unacceptable, and one that RWbots are fond of. Certainly it's creepy to anyone who recalls the whole American Revolution thing. :D

[BlooInBloo]

13. Apparently my explanation is universally misunderstood.

So be it - at least it's unanimous - for whatever that's worth.

[LynnTheDem]

11. No in fact, he is NOT your CiC, unless you are military.

Fact. :)

[BlooInBloo]

12. Sheesh.

In one sense of the word - you're right - he's not.

There's another sense in which he is.

And I explained it.

And it makes perfect sense.

sheesh.

[LynnTheDem]

14. In the FACTUAL sense of the word, he is NOT a CiC to ANYONE

unless they are in the US military.

FACT. :)

[BlooInBloo]

15. False.

Wow. That IS fun!

Thanks!

[LynnTheDem]

17. No problem! I'm sure an intelligent person such as yourself

will eventually understand the fact that bush is not the commander in chief of anyone other than US military.

:)

[TygrBright]

33. I gotcha, Bloo....

He's "our" Commander in Chief in exactly the same sense that he's "our" employee. And one of the things we employ him to be is Commander in Chief of "our" military.

We, the taxpayers, "own" it all, except for the bits we've mortgaged to China...

hmmmmm.... that gives me an idea.....!!

thoughtfully,
Bright

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

16. I disagree, since the common "misunderstanding" of this by the people

the OP is trying to address, who cite that shrub is "our CiC", mean it like a good German, where he is supreme emperor and we are all subject to his command, decree or whim.

So these distinctions should be pointed out, and often.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Just because some people misunderstand it....

... does NOT in and of itself mean there's something wrong with the verbiage - there isn't. I got nuthin against correcting a misunderstanding of what is unobjectionable verbiage of course.

It's not abstractly so different from the verbiage "the average American". There's nothing wrong with the phrase, correctly understood. The simple fact that some/many misunderstand it should not drive the rest of us from using the phrase correctly though. I prefer to fight for the correct use of language, and understanding the concepts in play, rather than "cutting and running" in the face of hordes of linguistic buffoons.

[LynnTheDem]

21. United States Constitution says it all for me;

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;


bush is NOT CINC for anyone who is NOT in the US military.

Period. Or is the USC just trying to make bush look bad? :rofl:

[LynnTheDem]

22. So does Wikipedia. Interesting.

A Commander-in-Chief is the commander of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces.

The United States Constitution designates the President of the United States as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military.

The governors of the several states are also commanders-in-chief of their states' respective National Guards and other military forces, except when those forces are called into active Federal service.

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks and the declaration of the "War on Terror", the American media has increasingly referred to the President as the "Commander-in-Chief," even in civil affairs. In the discourse of political opponents, this is often done when discussing the restriction of civil rights, such as with the Patriot Act, suggesting a comparison between President George W. Bush and the military leaders of dictatorial countries. However, ambiguous statements are also regularly made by those who support the Bush Administration, in such a way as to suggest that Bush is commander-in-chief of the nation itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief

A US president is a CINC ONLY to US military. Fact.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Um, that doesn't disagree with what I said....

... you really might wanna look at my basketball team captain analogy...

He's MY captain OF the team.

There's just nothing nothing semantically inappropriate about that....

EDIT: In case the analogy escapes you: "He's MY CiC OF the military."

[LynnTheDem]

24. You can call bush late for dinner if ya want.

But fact is, he is NOT a CINC to anyone who is not US military.

And that's just a FACT. :)

Call bush the CINC of the US military, that would be correct.

Call bush YOUR CINC of the US military would be weird, but correct.

But in fact he is NOT your CINC. Or mine. Or any other person. Unless that person is in the US military. :)

[Uncle Joe]

25. If Bush is the captain of the basketball team,

he's the one that throws the game and bets on the side.

[BlooInBloo]

26. touche!

[LynnTheDem]

27. I thought bush was the cheerleader.

Still is.

[Huskerchub]

31. You are confusing Yourself!

Your basketball team analogy assumes Billy is on a team of students and is "chosen" team captain. Is he the team captin for the football team? Vollyball? Student Council? The entire school? The town you live in? NO, Billy is the captain of the BASKETBALL team, he is a member of.

Using this analogy, that you are so proud of, Billy's team = US Military and Billy = CIC. So if Billy is to his team as CIC is to the military, gwb is CIC of the Military, NOT the nation and everything that IS NOT the Military. gwb is the Commander and Cheif of the US Military and NOTHING else, because by definition, nothing but the military has a Commanded in Chief. I think that you are confusing yourself with the term MY. YOU do not get to choose, as an "elected" official, the POTUS or State Gov. are by default the CIC, but they are not YOUR CIC unless you are in the military.

[BlooInBloo]

32. Hey coach!

Who's your captain?

Why, Billy's my captain.


Does that clarify?

[Kurovski]

6. Hehehe...beautiful!

"GUESS WHAT! YOU CAN!" Just plain beautiful...

[ClassWarrior]

9. I love public service...

NGU.

[texastoast]

10. Support our troops

With a little "fire support." Bravo to 11 Bravo!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x765946

[DELUSIONAL]

18. He is NOT a War Prez -- and he is not

my commander in chief ....

Exactly.

Doesn't his press sec. call him "your commander in chief"? Whoever ... when I hear that I hit the roof. I'm a Navy brat -- and I grew up on Navy bases. The chain of command was very clear -- and no prez was ever my "commander in chief".

NO ONE calls the dipshit on this lie.

Good thread -- K&N

[LynnTheDem]

20. The United States Constiution agrees with ya on the CINC part.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

[babylonsister]

28. Nom. for freeper enlightenment! nt

[smomfr]

29. How does this sound.......

if you are military and dumbya tells you to do something you better do it. On the other hand if you´re a civilian and he tells you to do something you can cheny him(go f**k yourself).

[im10ashus]

30. Have I told you lately that I love you?

Clooney and I both send our love. :-) :hi: :loveya:

[tabasco]

34. I hope he's Commander Im Peached soon.

That SOB lost any claim to the title commander when he took this nation to war for corporate profits.

The rotten dirty rat doesn't give a shit about soldiers and doesn't deserve to hold the title CINC.

[lutefisk]

35. Here's a nice little essay on this very topic:

"...I've heard it so many times in casual conversations that I can cite it verbatim: 'I'm not sure Bush is doing everything the best way, but he is our commander in chief, and we need to stand behind him during this time of war.'

I used to respond with the truthful reply that 'He's not MY commander in chief,' but that only made me look like a terrorist-loving, communist, pacifist, Islamofascist pinko to whomever I was speaking. So I've modified my response: 'He's not your commander in chief, unless you are active-duty military. Are you currently in active-duty service?'"

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/eddlem.php?articleid=8482