Palin: Some Parts of the Country Are Unpatriotic
By Jesse Singal - Oct 17th, 2008 at 11:03 amAccording to a Washington Post campaign blog, Sarah Palin, speaking at a North Carolina fundraiser last night, made a rather stark statement:
Palin… made a point of mentioning that she loved to visit the “pro-America” areas of the country, of which North Carolina is one. No word on which states she views as unpatriotic.
It would be interesting to ask Palin to lay out the metrics she uses to determine which parts of America are anti-American.
Patriotic - Plumbers, six packs
October 17th, 2008 at 11:18 amUnpatriotic - Teachers, kegs
I find it hard to believe that with only about 2 weeks to go in this campaign that the Republicans still don’t understand that the American voters have grown tired of divisive politics.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:24 amI wonder if loosing in a landslide will clarify it for them.
Bison, do you think Republicans are sort of giving up? At times it seems that they’re still showing outward signs of carrying on the fight, but they’re secretly not too confident.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:31 amBison, why are you so anti-american? You should move to North Carolina.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:58 amHmm, I wonder if she’ll still go on SNL since she has to visit NYC to do that …and it is a well known fact that NYC is filled with liberals who have a well known anti-american bias.
October 17th, 2008 at 12:50 pmPro America sounds like HOOOOOOAAAAAAAAH! USA USA USA USA!!!!!!!!!
Thats nice.
October 17th, 2008 at 1:42 pmwhy won’t alaska just secede? oh wait, people like todd palin are working on that. carry on!
October 17th, 2008 at 4:45 pmWhat’s wrong with secession, it actually is in the American spirit. The Revolutionary War was at heart an act of secession, and the principle of self-determination that secession reflects is an affirmation of the fundamentally American principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Just because Lincoln fucked things up and caused the Civil War doesn’t mean we should turn back on what are truly traditional American values (as opposed to the idiotic moralizing of the religious right that has claimed the term).
October 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pmLincoln was a constitutional lawyer, unless I misremember - and he had a lot invested in America’s representation of the “last, best hope.” A succeeded secession would have been the death of that hope, not to mention terribly, horribly illegal. So I respectfully disagree with your sentiment, sir, when you say that Lincoln fucked things up. I actually really hope you were kidding.
October 18th, 2008 at 9:50 pmI kid not. The Constitution was a contract between independent entities (the states). When the Federal government failed to uphold their end of the bargain, the contract should have been voided and the states free to remain or leave as they saw fit.
Furthermore, for a Constitutional lawyer - and I know nothing of the claim - Lincoln wasn’t much of one, considering his readiness to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
Even worse, by starting the Civil War - and he did, by refusing to remove troops from the soil of sovereign nation when that nation requested their removal and moving to further reinforce those troops, Lincoln very likely is responsible for the current state of black-white race relations in America today.
No other nation required a war to end slavery. Only the United States. There was nothing unique to our society that made it this way. Given another 2 decades, at most, the South would most likely have voluntarily ended slavery due to economic infeasibility. Instead, abolitionists and others forced the issue, with the end result of the most grievous war in American history, the injustice of Reconstruction, and an economically ravaged South that didn’t recover until after WWII and (improperly) placed the blame squarely on blacks and the forced equalizing of society.
On the other hand, had the process been allowed to organically end it stands to reason our society would be much more like other ones where it occurred. Without the toll of war and the Reconstruction that followed the South would never have faced the same depth of economic hardship. There would be less impetus to seek a source for blame, and in all likelihood we would see a more truly integrated society than we do today, one where race has diminished to the proper non-issue it should be.
Is 20-30 years less slavery worth the cost in lives and racial discord today? That’s debatable. But that Lincoln did fuck things up, there’s no question of that. He provoked a war that didn’t have to happen. He suspended habeas corpus during the war. That war ravaged the American population and annihilated the Southern economy. To suggest he was a great president because he pushed an idea of a single nation (which didn’t exist prior) and ensured we fought a war over it is preposterous. So no, I was not kidding.
October 19th, 2008 at 10:05 pm