• 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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just when you think Sarah Palin could not get any stupider, she surprises yet again. But don't take my word for it. Watch Palin confuse herself on Paul Revere.



This one is precious, and is one for those blooper reels of the future. LOL.

BTW, there was no such thing as the Second Amendment at that time, as the Constitution had not yet been written. And, needless to say, Revere didn't ride to warn the British. LOL.
 
Last edited:
She's the GOP gift that keeps on giving to the DNC.
 
I don't get the point of what she is doing. What is the purpose of this?
 
What's even more amusing is that Palin fans are claiming she's right based on the letter Revere wrote. Uh. Clearly reading comprehension goes out the window if you are a rabid Palin fan.

Telling a British officer about colonial troops when he's about to kill you is hardly riding to warn the British. Especially when his letter is mostly about riding to warn the colonials about an incoming invasion.

And let's just not forget at the time most of the colonists considered themselves British anyways. And Revere was hardly the only rider. The lies they tell in school. Oh Boy.
 
Just when you think Sarah Palin could not get any stupider, she surprises yet again. But don't take my word for it. Watch Palin confuse herself on Paul Revere.



This one is precious, and is one for those blooper reels of the future. LOL.

BTW, there was no such thing as the Second Amendment at that time, as the Constitution had not yet been written. And, needless to say, Revere didn't ride to warn the British. LOL.


i want some of what she was smoking
 
Obviously, it is Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Jay Leno, and the writers of SNL who are encouraging Palin to run.

I don't think she will. Just think how disappointed they will be.
 
People who know nothing about that period in history should really stop trying to invoke it so often to try and support their political views.
 
Ya'll are aware that the mission of that British force was to disarm the local militia. Right?

It would be very hard to argue that opposing that mission wasn't supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

Looks like Sarah knows more about history than...well...just about everyone on this thread.

But, hey, don't let historical facts get in the way of partisan hackery.
 
i want some of what she was smoking

Me too! She is either high or drunk or both. But whatever the stupid with this woman keeps getting stronger:2razz:

BTW: This thread needs this. Hope it ok to post this:)
 
Last edited:
Me too! She is either high or drunk or both. But whatever the stupid with this woman keeps getting stronger:2razz:

Why don't you dazzle us with your historical knowledge of the period? Thanks in advance.

Perhaps you can explain to us how O'Bama's American grandpaw liberated Auschwitz. I'm sure that would be interesting as hell. Can't wait for that.
 
Last edited:
Ya'll are aware that the mission of that British force was to disarm the local militia. Right?

It would be very hard to argue that opposing that mission wasn't supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

Looks like Sarah knows more about history than...well...just about everyone on this thread.

But, hey, don't let historical facts get in the way of partisan hackery.

So, the Republican position is that Paul Revere went to warn the British?

I must re register.
 
Just when you think Sarah Palin could not get any stupider, she surprises yet again. But don't take my word for it. Watch Palin confuse herself on Paul Revere.



This one is precious, and is one for those blooper reels of the future. LOL.

BTW, there was no such thing as the Second Amendment at that time, as the Constitution had not yet been written. And, needless to say, Revere didn't ride to warn the British. LOL.


Sarah Palin is a maroon of the first order and this only reinforces it. She should do herself a favor and just let the last 3 or 4 minutes of her 15 minute run go...just let it go.
 
Ya'll are aware that the mission of that British force was to disarm the local militia. Right?

It would be very hard to argue that opposing that mission wasn't supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

Looks like Sarah knows more about history than...well...just about everyone on this thread.

But, hey, don't let historical facts get in the way of partisan hackery.

I agree with you that the British wanted to seize the militia's weapons, but what is she talking about when she talks about warning the British and warning shots?
 
I agree with you that the British wanted to seize the militia's weapons, but what is she talking about when she talks about warning the British and warning shots?

Silly Tucker! Just go to news.google.com and you can find all manner of Palin apologists explaining why she said what she meant and she meant what she said. And she was right. Because YES! She really is Just That Good.
 
I agree with you that the British wanted to seize the militia's weapons, but what is she talking about when she talks about warning the British and warning shots?

Probably the same thing O'Bama was talking when he said that he'd visited 57 states. Mispoke, perhaps? Or, at least that's the excuse we hear from the same Libbos on this thread that are berating Sarah.
 
I agree with you that the British wanted to seize the militia's weapons, but what is she talking about when she talks about warning the British and warning shots?

I am convinced that she is given talking points, reads a little bit (without actually studying the info) and then when asked just kind of goes with it an ad-lib foolish sounding way. The Couric interview and in fact all of her run as a vice presidential candidate can be forgiven...she was snatched up as a novelty act and thrown into the fire. But she has had years to develop as a serious political figure. This is as bad as her response to Glenn Beck about the founding fathers.
 
Probably the same thing O'Bama was talking when he said that he'd visited 57 states. Mispoke, perhaps? Or, at least that's the excuse we hear from the same Libbos on this thread that are berating Sarah.

Apdst...I dont know man...seriously...this happens enough that she either is just that stupid or she doesnt learn from her past mistakes. Either option does not bode well for a potential presidential candidate.
 
Silly Tucker! Just go to news.google.com and you can find all manner of Palin apologists explaining why she said what she meant and she meant what she said. And she was right. Because YES! She really is Just That Good.

apdst does have a point about the issue being somewhat related to protecting their ability to wield weapons. Although it isn't really about defending their right to keep and bear arms so much as it was about defending their ability to wage a rebelling against the crown.

It was more military strategy rather than attempted political oppression. The British were aware that a rebellion was mounting, and that the rebels had a weapons stash in Concord
 
Last edited:
Apdst...I dont know man...seriously...this happens enough that she either is just that stupid or she doesnt learn from her past mistakes. Either option does not bode well for a potential presidential candidate.

What was the question?
 
Probably the same thing O'Bama was talking when he said that he'd visited 57 states. Mispoke, perhaps? Or, at least that's the excuse we hear from the same Libbos on this thread that are berating Sarah.

Seems like a bigger mistake than simply saying "fifty" instead fo "forty". She said it twice and they weren't single word mistakes. It could be that she mispoke, though.
 
I agree with you that the British wanted to seize the militia's weapons, but what is she talking about when she talks about warning the British and warning shots?

I can HEAR the machinations going off in her head..."holly...crap what did you just say? STOP!!! Just stop...dont go full retard...PLEASE dont go full retard...crap...you went full retard..."
 
Back
Top Bottom