• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sarah Palin: Paul Revere's Ride to Protect the Second Amendment

Sara plays right into the media's hands, by trying to prove she's presidential material, whenever they prod her. It's sad. They're playing her, big time.
 
It is when you intentionally misinterpret the context of what that person is saying.

Let's face it, she was right and actual historians have said so. The morons are the folks that keep claiming she got it wrong.

I do find it somewhat amusing that Democrats and liberal leaning posters here are so fired up about context of quotations, videos, etc. when it's THEIR guy that's getting raked over the coals... but not so much when it's not.
 
I do find it somewhat amusing that Democrats and liberal leaning posters here are so fired up about context of quotations, videos, etc. when it's THEIR guy that's getting raked over the coals... but not so much when it's not.

I don't see anyone misunderstanding the context of Palin's comments. :shrug:
 
Councilman... you do know that your link demonstrates that Palin GOT IT WRONG. Only way anyone could see it differently is by spinning the story to fit their agenda.

Revere's ride was about warning colonists... specifically Hancock and Adams, that the British were coming. NOT to tell the British anything. Whatever happened after he was captured was meaningless according to the purpose of his ride. Claiming different is the SPIN that I and others are talking about. Palin was WRONG.

I tried to point that out earlier. :coffeepap
 
I do find it somewhat amusing that Democrats and liberal leaning posters here are so fired up about context of quotations, videos, etc. when it's THEIR guy that's getting raked over the coals... but not so much when it's not.

The same can be said for both sides. It certainly isn't just Democrats. Partisan hacks are partisan hacks, regardless of the side they choose.
 
Whovian said:
I do find it somewhat amusing that Democrats and liberal leaning posters here are so fired up about context of quotations, videos, etc. when it's THEIR guy that's getting raked over the coals... but not so much when it's not.

The same can be said for both sides. It certainly isn't just Democrats. Partisan hacks are partisan hacks, regardless of the side they choose.

In general I would agree. However, from reading posts on DP, I have seen far more of that from the liberal leaning side of the board.
 
In general I would agree. However, from reading posts on DP, I have seen far more of that from the liberal leaning side of the board.

If someone asked Obama about the 57 states, I don't think he'd say, "You know, I didn't get it wrong... if you break Hawaii's islands into states...". That's the difference between a slip of the tongue and a Sarah Palin of the tongue. She either actually believes the idiocy that she spews or she is too arrogant and stubborn to admit a mistake.
 
If someone asked Obama about the 57 states, I don't think he'd say, "You know, I didn't get it wrong... if you break Hawaii's islands into states...". That's the difference between a slip of the tongue and a Sarah Palin of the tongue. She either actually believes the idiocy that she spews or she is too arrogant and stubborn to admit a mistake.

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with what my post was addressing, which ws context in general. Perhaps if you actually read a few posts before you commented, your responses might not look as stupid and out of place. Somehow, I doubt it though.
 
I don't see anyone misunderstanding the context of Palin's comments. :shrug:

This thread is chocka-block full of people that misunderstood what Palin said.
 
What was her mistake?
That you can't answer the question ...
Exactly what do you think she meant when she said he warned the British "BY ringing those bells?"
... answers your question for you.
 
This thread is chocka-block full of people that misunderstood what Palin said.

I don't believe that is the case concerning those who know she made a mistake. But I asked about context, in what context are we missing that makes her mistake not a mistake?
 
That you can't answer the question ...
Exactly what do you think she meant when she said he warned the British "BY ringing those bells?"
... answers your question for you.

No matter how many times you repeat that, it's not what she said. The first step would be for you to actually understand the history, then address her comments. I know that's too much to ask, though.

She never said, "he warned the British by ringing those bells".
 
What was her mistake?

If you quoted the entire answer he gave, you'd have your answer. But from the link he responded to:

Sarah Palin's much-ridiculed story of Paul Revere isn't entirely wrong, but it's badly twisted. Revere didn't ring bells or fire shots, and he was riding to warn two fellow rebels that the British were coming to arrest them, not to warn the British "that they weren't going to be taking away our arms."

More from the same article:

So how does Palin's version compare with, say, Paul Revere's? Not very well.

So, while you can link somethings that happened, after was caught for example, it was not his purpose, and she is factually wrong overall.
 
If you quoted the entire answer he gave, you'd have your answer. But from the link he responded to:

Sarah Palin's much-ridiculed story of Paul Revere isn't entirely wrong, but it's badly twisted. Revere didn't ring bells or fire shots, and he was riding to warn two fellow rebels that the British were coming to arrest them, not to warn the British "that they weren't going to be taking away our arms."

More from the same article:

So how does Palin's version compare with, say, Paul Revere's? Not very well.

So, while you can link somethings that happened, after was caught for example, it was not his purpose, and she is factually wrong overall.

Revere was captured, at which time he warned the British not to attempt to confiscate the arms that the militia had stockpiled.

Post your next misconception so I can clear that up, too.
 
Revere was captured, at which time he warned the British not to attempt to confiscate the arms that the militia had stockpiled.

Post your next misconception so I can clear that up, too.

Yes, but that isn't what she said. She said that is what his ride was about, what his purpose was. It wasn't.

Do read what I wrote again. You seem to misunderstand it.
 
What point is that? To keep repeating the same bull**** over and over, hoping it will magically become true?

Since when is using a quote bull****? You are extremely dishonest.
 
Revere was captured, at which time he warned the British not to attempt to confiscate the arms that the militia had stockpiled.
Would you mind quoting him saying that? Shouldn't be hard since he wrote about his adventure in several letters and never, ever, said that.


:liar
 
Yes, but that isn't what she said. She said that is what his ride was about, what his purpose was. It wasn't.

Do read what I wrote again. You seem to misunderstand it.

No, that's not what she said. You just didn't know enough about the history of the period to understand what she was talking about. Now that you do, you can't bring yourself to admit that she didn't **** it up, as much as you say.
 
Would you mind quoting him saying that? Shouldn't be hard since he wrote about his adventure in several letters and never, ever, said that.


:liar

I wouldn't mind, at all:

"He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and added that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above."

These are his words, describing his warning when the British detained him.
 
No, that's not what she said. You just didn't know enough about the history of the period to understand what she was talking about. Now that you do, you can't bring yourself to admit that she didn't **** it up, as much as you say.

The statements could be considered close enough to a truth to be stretched into saying she meant what history recorded. But quite honestly, y'all trying defend her just can't bring yourselves to admit that she cocked it up more than you say she did.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, but that isn't what she said. She said that is what his ride was about, what his purpose was. It wasn't.

No, that's not what she said. You just didn't know enough about the history of the period to understand what she was talking about. Now that you do, you can't bring yourself to admit that she didn't **** it up, as much as you say.
Umm, yeah, that's exactly what she said...
"Part of his ride was to warn the British that we we're already there, that hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not gonna take American arms." ~ Sarah Palin
No part of his ride was to warn the British. In fact, every part of his ride was to avoid the British.
 
Umm, yeah, that's exactly what she said...
"Part of his ride was to warn the British that we we're already there, that hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not gonna take American arms." ~ Sarah Palin
No part of his ride was to warn the British. In fact, every part of his ride was to avoid the British.

Here is where the bell ringing comes into play. I know you've been hung up on that for several days now.

Well, he’s not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others. What he’s doing is going from house to house, knocking on doors of members of the Committees of Safety, saying the regulars are out. That is, he knew that General Gage was sending troops out to Lexington and Concord, really Concord, to seize the weapons being stockpiled there, but also perhaps to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, leaders of the Continental Congress who were staying in the town of Lexington.

Evidence Mounting: Palin Was Right | RedState
 
Back
Top Bottom