Palin supports Alaskan secession?

[CarmelHP]

So lets recap her qualifications:

1 - international diplomacy ( sorry couldn't keep a straight face. I really tried.)
2 - won't take "pork" for an answer - unless its used for a "road to nowhere"
3 - was mayor of a small town in which she had virtually no responsibilites.
4 - Governor of a state for a short time whose administration has had it's share of political scandals.
5 - Her husband was until very recently a member of a party whose founder stated "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

So, what you're saying is that she's still more qualified to be vice-president than Obama is to be either president (0 heartbeats away)or vice-president?

 

[MilitaryArms]

So, what you're saying is that she's still more qualified to be vice-president than Obama is to be either president (0 heartbeats away)or vice-president?

Whoa there pistol, Obama was a "community organizer". We all know what those do...

Don't we?

 

[right winger]

If I didn't live here in good ole Indiana, I now know I want to live in Alaska. Go Ms Sarah!

I would move the also. I never heard Sarah say she supported secession.

 

[Episcopus]

Palin thinks that engaging in diplomacy with people that hold a certain set of ideals means that you also hold those ideals. She said so in the VP debate. Surely voluntarily recording a welcome message for a party's convention is more than engaging in diplomacy, where your goals may be to change minds and reach a resolution. By Palin's words regarding diplomacy, she has adopted the AIP message and supports their ideals by recording the welcome speech for their convention and not renouncing their desire to secede from the Union, or their founder's hate for America.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Before the Heller decision was announced, I recall Montana was talking about secession as well. This was discussed here on INGO, and if I recall, the response was positive.

Secession is not a bad thing. See, when one party to a contract breaches it, unless there is a severability clause, the other party is no longer bound by that contract. The fedgov breached it's end of the contract (the Constitution) long before most of what we now call America existed as such. (Think Whiskey Rebellion, late 1700s.)

The Constitution contains no clause that says it is an agreement that cannot be ended, and in fact the Declaration of Independence specifically mentions what amounts to secession (which is a peaceful form of revolution; to secede, no fight is necessary, just a statement of "Fare thee well; we're leaving.")

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security....

We HAVE a long train of abuses and usurptions. We rapidly approach a police state, which is despotism. If any state was to choose to quietly, peaceably, and amicably separate from the Union, I would think that such action would be completely acceptable-as would their self-defense, when descended upon by Federal troops intent upon stopping that action.

Let me be totally clear on that last point: I think that if Alaska or Montana or Indiana, indeed any state, was to say "we're leaving" without firing a single shot or lifting a weapon, I would have no argument. (In some cases, I'd offer to help them pack.) If any of those states took up arms to fire the first shot, I would likely consider that action as wrong as any attempt to force them to stay. We often say that people can either be persuaded or they can be forced to take an action they choose not to take. Why are states any different?

Blessings,
B

 

[GetA2J]

Palin thinks that engaging in diplomacy with people that hold a certain set of ideals means that you also hold those ideals. She said so in the VP debate. Surely voluntarily recording a welcome message for a party's convention is more than engaging in diplomacy, where your goals may be to change minds and reach a resolution. By Palin's words regarding diplomacy, she has adopted the AIP message and supports their ideals by recording the welcome speech for their convention and not renouncing their desire to secede from the Union, or their founder's hate for America.

BS! BS! BS! BS!

 

[turnandshoot4]

Why is this BS?

 

[turnandshoot4]

I am on neither side of the issue but I don't see a reason to just disregard someone's post as BS. Do you have anything to retort with?

 

[GetA2J]

Palin thinks that engaging in diplomacy with people that hold a certain set of ideals means that you also hold those ideals. She said so in the VP debate. Surely voluntarily recording a welcome message for a party's convention is more than engaging in diplomacy, where your goals may be to change minds and reach a resolution. By Palin's words regarding diplomacy, she has adopted the AIP message and supports their ideals by recording the welcome speech for their convention and not renouncing their desire to secede from the Union, or their founder's hate for America.

To say that Palin thinks that engaging in diplomacy with people that hold a certain set of ideals means that you also hold those same ideals. is in no uncertain terms B.S!!!!
Diplomats around the world engage in diplomacy with countries and peoples of all sorts of ideals and agendas, I cannot imagine ANYONE with half a brain actually making a statement like that in a serious manner at all! UNLESS that person is trying rather superfluously to discredit the subject of the statement.


Second: the welcome speech that was linked here as I watched it.... is NOTHING more than a gesture of political correctness. NOT unlike if the same Governor of Alaska had welcomed some democratic convention. I felt it was cordial and professional with being ebracing in any manner. ....unless of course somebody has some sixth sense and can read into her words more than I can. OR just likes making stuff up.


Disclaimer: I did not get to watch all of the VP debate. What I did see I never got the idea that she feels this way about engaging in diplomacy.

 

[Episcopus]

To say that Palin thinks that engaging in diplomacy with people that hold a certain set of ideals means that you also hold those same ideals. is in no uncertain terms B.S!!!!

Her words from the debate, not mine. She said that Iran thinks Israel is a stinking corpse (which Iran does) and that Iran said that Israel should be blown off the map (which it has). She said that meeting with a country that has made those statements legitimizes those statements and would lead the other country (Israel) to believe that the US (or any country engaging in diplomacy with Iran) supported those ideas and also held them.

Now, the AIP supports secession (I don't care, secede if you want). Palin recorded a welcome for their convention (communicated with them). By her logic, she has validated and legitimized the AIP's beliefs, and it is reasonable for others to think she holds the same beliefs. Someone who believes that her state should not be in the Union has no business as VP, as she would then no longer be VP. If I held the same belief about Indiana, I would be disbarred.

 

[Episcopus]

Before the Heller decision was announced, I recall Montana was talking about secession as well. This was discussed here on INGO, and if I recall, the response was positive.

Secession is not a bad thing. See, when one party to a contract breaches it, unless there is a severability clause, the other party is no longer bound by that contract. The fedgov breached it's end of the contract (the Constitution) long before most of what we now call America existed as such. (Think Whiskey Rebellion, late 1700s.)

The Constitution contains no clause that says it is an agreement that cannot be ended, and in fact the Declaration of Independence specifically mentions what amounts to secession (which is a peaceful form of revolution; to secede, no fight is necessary, just a statement of "Fare thee well; we're leaving.")



We HAVE a long train of abuses and usurptions. We rapidly approach a police state, which is despotism. If any state was to choose to quietly, peaceably, and amicably separate from the Union, I would think that such action would be completely acceptable-as would their self-defense, when descended upon by Federal troops intent upon stopping that action.

Let me be totally clear on that last point: I think that if Alaska or Montana or Indiana, indeed any state, was to say "we're leaving" without firing a single shot or lifting a weapon, I would have no argument. (In some cases, I'd offer to help them pack.) If any of those states took up arms to fire the first shot, I would likely consider that action as wrong as any attempt to force them to stay. We often say that people can either be persuaded or they can be forced to take an action they choose not to take. Why are states any different?

Blessings,
B

My only thoughts on recession are that it takes a 2/3 vote of the other states to let you in, it should take some sort of vote to let you out. It could be 1/3 (then you would be under the 2/3 for admission), or it could be 2/3 (the same supermajority required to increase the size of the Union applied to decreasong its size). I don't support unilateral secession as too many states are interwtined with each other and some states hold a lot of farming/manufacturing/whatever resources which the whole country relies upon. I also think secession is generally a bad idea because any state that secedes will probably find that being a state is a whole lot easier than being a respected country, and getting back in would be tough.

Those thoughts are just on the logistics and practicality of it, though. As far as wanting to secede, my answer is the same to a state as to any individual that no longer wants to be an American: "Get out and don't look back. If you don't want to be an American, I don't want you here. Good luck."

 

[GetA2J]

Her words from the debate, not mine. She said that Iran thinks Israel is a stinking corpse (which Iran does) and that Iran said that Israel should be blown off the map (which it has). She said that meeting with a country that has made those statements legitimizes those statements and would lead the other country (Israel) to believe that the US (or any country engaging in diplomacy with Iran) supported those ideas and also held them.

Now, the AIP supports secession (I don't care, secede if you want). Palin recorded a welcome for their convention (communicated with them). By her logic, she has validated and legitimized the AIP's beliefs, and it is reasonable for others to think she holds the same beliefs. Someone who believes that her state should not be in the Union has no business as VP, as she would then no longer be VP. If I held the same belief about Indiana, I would be disbarred.

OMG!!!!!!

Since I have on occasion replied to Obama supporters. I must have validated their beliefs and am now one of them!!!!!



AAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!









I still call B.S.

 

[BloodEclipse]

As far as wanting to secede, my answer is the same to a state as to any individual that no longer wants to be an American: "Get out and don't look back. If you don't want to be an American, I don't want you here. Good luck."

I think what is missing here is, that those people do want to be Americans or at least what it use to stand for.
If you join an organization because you like what they do and agree with the bylaws and mission statement, you are supporting it.
However after time the organization starts heading in a different direction from its original charter. You and others like you, who disagree with it can try to guide it back on path. If you are unsuccessful you then have to make a choice. Stay with the organization, even though you disagree with the new direction, or leave and try to join another or create your own. The states that have brought the idea of succession up have done so because the USA do not have the same values that it once had. It is not being unamerican to want to live by those principals that the country was founded on to begin with.

 

[Episcopus]

I think what is missing here is, that those people do want to be Americans or at least what it use to stand for.
If you join an organization because you like what they do and agree with the bylaws and mission statement, you are supporting it.
However after time the organization starts heading in a different direction from its original charter. You and others like you, who disagree with it can try to guide it back on path. If you are unsuccessful you then have to make a choice. Stay with the organization, even though you disagree with the new direction, or leave and try to join another or create your own. The states that have brought the idea of succession up have done so because the USA do not have the same values that it once had. It is not being unamerican to want to live by those principals that the country was founded on to begin with.

The bottom line is that wanting to leave America is being unAmerican. There is no way around that. The founding fathers wanted to live the by good British ideals, but not the ones they disagreed with, so they set up a country with the good, but not the bad. They were unBritish (I made unBritish up, whatever). Wanting to secede is not inherently wrong, but it is inherently unAmerican.

 

[Episcopus]

OMG!!!!!!

Since I have on occasion replied to Obama supporters. I must have validated their beliefs and am now one of them!!!!!



AAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!









I still call B.S.

Call BS all you want, those were her words. Calling BS does not make it untrue. If you have a different interpretation of what she said, please share. If you don't know what she said, find out and report back. I am not making that up, it is what she said.

 

[flagtag]

A Governor is a servant of the people - All of them. And as such, has responsibilities to the people. (even if he/she doesn't agree with them)
Denouncing the government is not the same as denouncing one's citizenship.

Part of an official's duties is dealing with groups that they might not approve of, but at the same time, they can't exclude those groups from the same consideration offered to everyone else. They must treat everyone equally. (no matter how much it hurts) It's their duty!

We all, at one time or another, have to deal with those we don't want to, but we are required by a code of conduct, to try to treat them with a minimum amout of respect that is due to everyone until they lose that right to it. (Just saying that they want to cecede is not enough cause)
(After all, he was just "condeming" the government, not the country)

Being a "servant of the People" can't be easy. They are required to deal with people/groups that we could refuse to deal with.

 

[Episcopus]

A Governor is a servant of the people - All of them. And as such, has responsibilities to the people. (even if he/she doesn't agree with them)
Denouncing the government is not the same as denouncing one's citizenship.

Part of an official's duties is dealing with groups that they might not approve of, but at the same time, they can't exclude those groups from the same consideration offered to everyone else. They must treat everyone equally. (no matter how much it hurts) It's their duty!

We all, at one time or another, have to deal with those we don't want to, but we are required by a code of conduct, to try to treat them with a minimum amout of respect that is due to everyone until they lose that right to it. (Just saying that they want to cecede is not enough cause)
(After all, he was just "condeming" the government, not the country)

Being a "servant of the People" can't be easy. They are required to deal with people/groups that we could refuse to deal with.

I agree that it has to be hard to deal with everyone the same.

I disagree that you can renounce a government and move for secession without renouncing your citizenship. If you secede, you are no longer an American citizen, period. I also disagree that the founder of the AIP was renouncing the government but not his citizenship. He said he was an Alaskan, not an American. He said he would not be buried under the American flag.

 

[4sarge]

If I held the same belief about Indiana, I would be disbarred.

Sounds like a plan to me I didn't know how entrenched that the Daley/Obama machine was in Northern Indiana until now. Looks like Northern Indiana needs an enema or a good flush by the voters.

 

[flagtag]

I agree that it has to be hard to deal with everyone the same.

I disagree that you can renounce a government and move for secession without renouncing your citizenship. If you secede, you are no longer an American citizen, period. I also disagree that the founder of the AIP was renouncing the government but not his citizenship. He said he was an Alaskan, not an American. He said he would not be buried under the American flag.

Our "government" is nothing but people, and they are not our country. Maybe the man got confused about that.
When I think of the U. S. of A., I don't think of the members of any level of government. I think of the People and Constitution and Flag.

Too many people think of the President, Senators, Representatives and how they are screwing up our country and violating the Constitution and their Oath of Office when they think of our country. They confuse the difference. The government is not my country.

 

[flagtag]

Sounds like a plan to me I didn't know how entrenched that the Daley/Obama machine was in Northern Indiana until now. Looks like Northern Indiana needs an enema or a good flush by the voters.

We could use a North-Eastern enema here in IL as well. (Or cecede from Chicago/Cook County.)