JMS Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Just got back from boston and walking the freedom trail with my daughter... I find myself in the odd cercomstances of supporting Palin on this one... Paul Revere did not ride out saying, The british are coming the british are coming as the folklore goes because everybody considered themselves british when Paul Revere made his ride. Paul Revere said "the regulars are coming".... Paul Revere did not finish his ride as he was arrested/detained ,midway through his ride and thus never finished.. Dr William Dawes was the guy who warned the militia at lexington and concord where the shot heard around the world was fired. Palin thus got it essentially correct, only by her description it's not clear she understood the distinction. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/sarah-palin-i-didnt-mess-up-about-paul-revere-video.php#0_undefined,0_ On Fox News Sunday, Sarah Palin was asked about the version of Paul Revere's ride she offered during her visit to Boston, Mass., last week. Palin rejected claims that she'd flubbed her history, and criticized what she called a "gotcha" question. "You realize that you messed up about Paul Revere, don't you?" host Chris Wallace asked. "You know what, I didn't mess up about Paul Revere," Palin said. She went on: Here's what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that the British were coming, the British were coming and they are going to try to take our arms so we have to make sure that we were protecting ourselves and shoring up all of our ammunitions and our firearms, so that they couldn't take them. But remember that the British had already been there, many soldiers, for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere's ride, and it wasn't just one ride -- he was a courier, he was a messenger -- part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that, "hey, you are not going succeed, you are not going to take American arms. You are not going beat our own well-armed persons, individual private militia that we have." He did warn the British, and in a shout-out gotcha type of question that was asked of me I answered candidly. And I know my American history. Meanwhile, The Boston Herald found at least one historian, Boston University professor Brendan McConville, to kinda, sorta back Palin's account of Revere warning the British and warning shots being fired (though he called her "lucky.") Patrick Leehey, research director of the Paul Revere House, expressed doubts that Palin was referring to the actual historical data in her comments. To help her luck, Palin's supporters have apparently taken to Wikipedia, and are editing the entry on Paul Revere to better fit the former Alaska governor's account, prompting one user to write that "someone has added false information in an effort to support Sarah Palin's FALSE claims about Paul Revere." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Whatever. Next thing you know we'll find out how she's correct in 2 x 2 being 5. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 As a card carrying member of the democratic party, I must say, "Please Let Her Be The Republican Nominee." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Watch the clip. She clearly had no idea what she was talking about, and was trying desperately to come up with a somewhat intelligible answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpskins10 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 She was using the Revere story to say that Revere warned the British that Americans wouldn't put down their guns, essentially. No way how you twist that makes it correct. The British, or Regulars, were not directly warned by Revere about ANYTHING. Revere made the journey to warn the American colonists of the Regulars' arrival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Watch the clip. She clearly had no idea what she was talking about, and was trying desperately to come up with a somewhat intelligible answer. But not to worry. After only a couple of days, her handlers have successfully trained her in what to say, so that people can pretend that she was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Yet another miniscule issue blown completely out of proportion, out of hatred. America still has nothing better to do. Will it ever end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 To help her luck, Palin's supporters have apparently taken to Wikipedia, and are editing the entry on Paul Revere to better fit the former Alaska governor's account It's not all that surprising,but still :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Yet another miniscule issue blown completely out of proportion, out of hatred. America still has nothing better to do.Will it ever end Well, how about when she makes one of her usual idiotic comments that clearly shows that she's a moron who should not be in the position her followers are putting her in, that she admits it rather than trying to re-arrange history to suit the stupid thing she said? How about her followers catching on and saying "You know,, that is just one too many total misrepresentations and incorrect references.. I can't support this woman anymore." It's like this... the people who follow her can't see it,, such as you, who believes it's out of "hatred".. I can tell you it's more out of desperation that the brainless morons who prop this dimwit up might actually get her the nomination. The folks who blindly, and i mean BLINDLY support her remind me of this Except the entire country is the baby, the supporters being the freakshow dad.. and they think it's funny watching people get bothered by their insistence on giving this woman a credible shot at running this country. And like that picture,, one slip and... Call her what she is. Stop propping her up as if she's competent enough to run this country. She's not. She hasn't got the brains. It's as clear as anything in politics can be. There are better choices on the right. Much better. Drop this clown before you accidentally drop the baby. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Revere was captured and under interrogation convinced his captors that the American forces were greater and more prepared than the Brits believed,managing to cause a panic among the Royalist forces. Both Palin and her critics are clueless on this one. If she had an IQ higher than her shoe size, she could've really turned the tables on this one, but her well-rehearsed rebuttal ended up being so far out there it proved once again what a bimbo she is rather than vindicating her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 She was using the Revere story to say that Revere warned the British that Americans wouldn't put down their guns, essentially. No way how you twist that makes it correct. The British, or Regulars, were not directly warned by Revere about ANYTHING. Revere made the journey to warn the American colonists of the Regulars' arrival. There are sources out there like the la times saying in Paul Revere's journel he does claim to have definantly told teh british they would be meet on the Lexington Green.... I don't know how accurate this is though. I'm not familiar with the particulars of Paul Revere's ride.... And Palin's supporters haven't shyed away from being pretty agreessive in there support of her. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Kind of like when Jessica Alba said Sweden was neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Revere was captured and under interrogation convinced his captors that the American forces were greater and more prepared than the Brits believed,managing to cause a panic among the Royalist forces. Both Palin and her critics are clueless on this one. If she had an IQ higher than her shoe size, she could've really turned the tables on this one, but her well-rehearsed rebuttal ended up being so far out there it proved once again what a bimbo she is rather than vindicating her. (1) The british didn't panic at Lexington and Concord. (2) Paul Revere certainly was captured by the british and did not finish his ride, being detained half way through the ride by British sentries. If he had really confessed to being a rebel and part of the people massing weapons and powder at lexington green; would the Brits really have released him after a few hours of detention? I don't think so. I've seen blog entries making that claim. I've yet to see it from a reputable source, and the Wikipedia editors who were getting flooded by Palin supporters made the same call. Show me a source wich made this claim prior to Palin's statement.. Haven't seen that yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Whatever.Next thing you know we'll find out how she's correct in 2 x 2 being 5. ~Bang Hell that;s easy....if you are rounding to multiples of 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Kind of like when Jessica Alba said Sweden was neutral. Sweden was neutral in WWII. They have a long history of Neutrality. What's the controversy with Jessica Alba's statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Despite the hopes and prayers of the Democratic party, the supporters of the Republican party are not stupid enough to nominate Palin. She reminds me more of Ross Perot. Plays well to the older crowd, isn't necessarily interested in having any responsibility, wants to promote herself, and scares the **** of of reasonable conservatives. It's been all downhill since her speech at the convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Yet another miniscule issue blown completely out of proportion, out of hatred. America still has nothing better to do.Will it ever end She is one of the most powerful politicians in the country and has had a very good chance of being the Republican nominee. And she is a goddamn idiot. This is troubling. It's the like Republicans internalized all those "Geroge W. Bush is stupid" jokes and said. "OK, America. We are going to show you what a stupid politician really is." She and her grifter family are traveling around the country on who know whose dime engaging in a campaign without calling it a campaign because calling it a campaign would mean that she could no longer take payment from Fox or her fake PAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 It's been all downhill since her speech at the convention. That was a scary good speach that Palin gave. I think that was the peak of her appeal to moderates and independents. I personally think it's been all down hill since Pallin got stumped by the hard hitting questions of katie couric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 That was a scary good speach that Palin gave. I think that was the peak of her appeal to moderates and independents. I personally think it's been all down hill since Pallin got stumped by the hard hitting questions of katie couric. She is perfectly suited to be the VP candidate in a losing campaign. She is fantastic at throwing red meat at the most partisan supporters. That's about all she can do, however. The scary thing is that may be enough to pull out a victory in primary with a large field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Sweden was neutral in WWII. They have a long history of Neutrality. What's the controversy with Jessica Alba's statement? Blogs were making fun of her insisting she meant Switzerland, not Sweden when she said "be neutral, be Sweden about it." Technically she's correct if she's talking about WW2 but the Swedes do have troops in Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 There are sources out there like the la times saying in Paul Revere's journel he does claim to have definantly told teh british they would be meet on the Lexington Green.... I don't know how accurate this is though. I'm not familiar with the particulars of Paul Revere's ride.... And Palin's supporters haven't shyed away from being pretty agreessive in there support of her.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html Thats not a real LA Times article that is Andrew Malcolm he is a blogger with a ridiculous hard on for Sarah Palin and time and time again has made ridiculous jumps to defend her regardless of the facts (he once tried to spin that the fact that 71% of people didn't think Palin was fit to be President into a positive). The fact is Palin had no idea what the hell she was talking about and tried to bull**** it with an answer that "sounded right". The fact that she inadvertently got part of a fact right doesn't mean that she knew what the hell she was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Blogs were making fun of her insisting she meant Switzerland, not Sweden when she said "be neutral, be Sweden about it."Technically she's correct if she's talking about WW2 but the Swedes do have troops in Afghanistan. Very interesting. Yep sweden at one time had as many as 500 troops in afghanistan, although they aren't part of NATO. That's interesting thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Hell that;s easy....if you are rounding to multiples of 5 You know,, it would not surprise me in the slightest. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Sweden was neutral in WWII. They have a long history of Neutrality. What's the controversy with Jessica Alba's statement? You made the same mistake she did. You're thinking of Switzerland, not Sweden. Sweden didn't get a choice in the matter. *EDIT* Never mind. I'm thinking of another country. My mistake on your "mistake". Of course, I don't see how a politician, who should be judged by intelligence and knowledge, compares to an actress, who has to look good and deliver the lines of others convinicingly (which one was this again? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Here is a fun game. Let's try to diagram her sentence on Paul Revere. Because - Sweet Jesus...... He warned the British that they weren't going be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells, and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.