Say what you will about Joe Biden

[KrazyHorse]

Why would you accept Obama as "your" commander-in-chief?

99+% of US citizens are not subject to military authority. Obama is the commander-in-chief of US military forces. Not of the nation.

[Drake Tungsten]

What's with your recent linguistic precision kick? It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's making you somewhat annoying to talk to...

[KrazyHorse]

For a country which claims to be founded on libertarian/limited government ideals the US often seems to be enamoured with the trappings of militarism.

[KrazyHorse]

What's with your recent linguistic precision kick? It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's making you somewhat annoying to talk to...

In both of the recent cases I can think of there is an important point dependent on the linguistic precision.

In the "discrimination" case it affects the legal argument pro or counter gay marriage. Despite your continuous objections, the relevant precedent really IS Loving v. Va. Restricting marriage based on the relative group membership of contractees is discriminatory and based on the equal protection clause requires the state to actimvely prove its valid overriding interest in maintaining the discrimination.

In this case it speaks to the frankly unsavoury vicarious militarism of modern American civil society, a theme which was raised in the initial few posts of this thread. The average Canadian, for example, would not be caught dead referring to the PM (or Queen) in such an obsequious manner except as a joke. And if we're discussing linguistic fetishism, you're one to talk, given your response to MrFun

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't think a love for the trappings of militarism is the reason for the common conflation of "President" and "Commander-in-Chief" in America. It seems natural that this would happen when the President and the Commander-in-Chief are always the same person.

And if we're discussing linguistic fetishism, you're one to talk, given your response to MrFun

I don't think it's fetishism to point out that he inferred a meaning from my sentence that clearly wasn't there.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think a love for the trappings of militarism is the reason for the common conflation of "President" and "Commander-in-Chief" in America.

Conflation is not the issue here. They are, as you point out, the same individual. The question is one of common parlance. Why is it that Americans are so in love with referring to the President as "the Commander in Chief"? Other countries' executives perform similar functions, yet far more emphasis is placed on this in the US. The great majority of the US federal government's expenditures and responsibilities are non-military in nature.

Secondly, and even more disturbingly, referring to the President as "your" commander in chief rather than simply "the" commander in chief implies very strikingly an acceptance of a personal command authority.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why is it that Americans are so in love with referring to the President as "the Commander in Chief"?

Where's the evidence that Americans are "in love" with using the term?

Secondly, and even more disturbingly, referring to the President as "your" commander in chief rather than simply "the" commander in chief implies very strikingly an acceptance of a personal command authority.

I think you're imagining things. If I were to adopt the same paranoid view, I might wonder about the disturbing fealty Canadians show the Queen by placing her visage on every single one of their coins. That would be retarded, though.

[KrazyHorse]

Why is it that Americans are so in love with referring to the President as "the Commander in Chief"?

Where's the evidence that Americans are "in love" with using the term?

Are you denying the VERY heavy usage of the term even when discussing non-military issues?

I think you're imagining things. If I were to adopt the same paranoid view, I might wonder about the disturbing fealty Canadians show the Queen by placing her visage on every single one of their coins.

That's pure momentum. Referring to Obama as your commander in chief is an ongoing choice.

[Drake Tungsten]

Are you denying the VERY heavy usage of the term even when discussing non-military issues?

No. What I'm saying is that it doesn't reflect a love for the trappings of militarism. "President" and "Commander-in-Chief" are treated as interchangeable synonyms in America. I'd imagine most Americans don't even think of the military aspects of "Commander-in-Chief" when they use it to refer to the President...

That's pure momentum.

Whatever. We all know that it's really a reflection of Canada's intense nostalgia for the glory days of the British Empire.

[KrazyHorse]

[Drake Tungsten]

BTW, I don't appreciate you sending your Nazi-loving, ginger prince over to stink up Harlem...

[KrazyHorse]

AFAIK prince Harry has no official standing in Canada. The Queen and the Prince of Wales do.

[Drake Tungsten]

I can't wait until you monarchy-loving ****s have to put Charles on your money.

[KrazyHorse]

We'll see about that. Lizzie might outlast him.

[Drake Tungsten]

God willing.