• 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

Sheik Yerbuti said:
I believe someone was just quoting an expert ...
... he warned them, "that I had alarmed the country all the way up, that their boats were catch'd aground, and I should have 500 men there soon..."
​
Nothing in there warning the British about our arms, Palin was wrong.
Click to expand...
Are you a expert on Paul Revere's ride or a American Historian? The experts disagree with you, so please explain why you would be correct and not the experts. Did your read the article?
 
Bodhisattva said:
"He wasn't really warning the British when he was a captive," said "Rides of Paul Revere" author Giblin. "He was just, in a way, boasting about the capabilities of Americans. 'You don't know what you're going to be up against,' etc. He was playing the patriot even there. He did maybe inflate the American strength, but that was to throw the British off guard. He was propagandizing, really."

Sarah Palin's Account of Paul Revere's Midnight Ride Gets Shot Down by Historians - ABC News
Click to expand...
And he absolutely wasn't riding to warn the British about anything. Poor Palin cultists, defending her hopelessly.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think that the Director of the Paul Revere House is the best source, and that person does not agree...
Click to expand...

Hey, if the Director of the Paul Revere House says so, that works for me.
 
deltabtry said:
Are you a expert on Paul Revere's ride or a American Historian? The experts disagree with you, so please explain why you would be correct and not the experts. Did your read the article?
Click to expand...
No, "the experts" do not agree. Some do, some don't. But what none of them have yet to produce is Revere saying anyhing about "arms" to the British.
 
BDBoop said:
Hey, if the Director of the Paul Revere House says so, that works for me.
Click to expand...
Quote from the Director, this is not saying Palin was wrong..
"Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British".
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I believe someone was just quoting an expert ...
... he warned them, "that I had alarmed the country all the way up, that their boats were catch'd aground, and I should have 500 men there soon..."
​
Nothing in there warning the British about our arms, Palin was wrong.
Click to expand...

People defending Palin are doing so for no other reason that politics... and showing their own ridiculousness. The issue is the term, "warn". Revere "told" the British about the militia. Telling is not warning unless he is trying to help them. He was not trying to help them unless people are now going to argue that Revere was a traitor. Revere "told" the British in an effort to intimidate them, or "warn" them that they were messing with the wrong dudes NOT to help them, but to either get them to back or and **** off, or to intimidate them.

Palin defenders are not getting this subtle distinction. Instead they favor defending her foolish error in a foolish fashion.
 
Bodhisattva said:
People defending Palin are doing so for no other reason that politics... and showing their own ridiculousness. The issue is the term, "warn". Revere "told" the British about the militia. Telling is not warning unless he is trying to help them. He was not trying to help them unless people are now going to argue that Revere was a traitor. Revere "told" the British in an effort to intimidate them, or "warn" them that they were messing with the wrong dudes NOT to help them, but to either get them to back or and **** off, or to intimidate them.

Palin defenders are not getting this subtle distinction. Instead they favor defending her foolish error in a foolish fashion.
Click to expand...
Revere "told" the British in an effort to intimidate them,
Click to expand...
This is what I think Palin meant, it may have not come out that way but not for one second would I think Sarah would accuse Paul Revere as being a traitor. This would go against every thing that was taught in our schools, but the left is quick to try to trip her up for any reason, so the political assassination motive goes to the left, after all it is their MO.
 
deltabtry said:
This is what I think Palin meant, it may have not come out that way but not for one second would I think Sarah would accuse Paul Revere as being a traitor. This would go against every thing that was taught in our schools, but the left is quick to try to trip her up for any reason, so the political assassination motive goes to the left, after all it is their MO.
Click to expand...

Nevermind that the "left" had no clue as to what she was talking about until they looked it up. :lamo
 
deltabtry said:
This is what I think Palin meant, it may have not come out that way but not for one second would I think Sarah would accuse Paul Revere as being a traitor. This would go against every thing that was taught in our schools, but the left is quick to try to trip her up for any reason, so the political assassination motive goes to the left, after all it is their MO.
Click to expand...
Umm, Palin also said that Revere warned the British they weren't going to take our arms "by ringing those bells" ... Aside from the fact that Revere didn't say anything about "arms" to the British, I've yet to read an account where Revere was ringbing bells to warn them about it.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I believe someone was just quoting an expert ...
... he warned them, "that I had alarmed the country all the way up, that their boats were catch'd aground, and I should have 500 men there soon..."
​
Nothing in there warning the British about our arms, Palin was wrong.
Click to expand...
I was quoting directly out of Paul Revere's account. And yes, the Brits were after the leaders and the armaments.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Telling is not warning unless he is trying to help them. He was not trying to help them unless people are now going to argue that Revere was a traitor. Revere "told" the British in an effort to intimidate them, or "warn" them that they were messing with the wrong dudes NOT to help them, but to either get them to back or and **** off, or to intimidate them.

Palin defenders are not getting this subtle distinction. Instead they favor defending her foolish error in a foolish fashion.
Click to expand...
Pretty dim bulb there. Liberal, right?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, Palin also said that Revere warned the British they weren't going to take our arms "by ringing those bells" ... Aside from the fact that Revere didn't say anything about "arms" to the British, I've yet to read an account where Revere was ringbing bells to warn them about it.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter, I got the message that Palin was trying to say, addlibbed or otherwise, if you can recite the Gettysburg address verbally and verbatim then you have a leg to stand on with your complaint not to mention I would be impressed. All I can say is feel the hate, embrace it and let it flow through your veins and you will feel the power of the left.
 
Misterveritis said:
I was quoting directly out of Paul Revere's account. And yes, the Brits were after the leaders and the armaments.
Click to expand...
And still, Revere said nothing to them about "arms." :golf Keep tryin'!
 
Misterveritis said:
LOL. Some people cannot learn. We call them liberals.
Click to expand...
Awww, a Conservative gets frustrated with Liberals and starts hurling insults.
:violin
​
That's about as predictable as Sarah Palin sticking her foot in her mouth again.
 
Check this out...

One of her dimwitted supporters actually tried to edit the Paul Revere Wiki page over the weekend.

Sarah Palin's Paul Revere Wikipedia rewrite: who writes history again?

(CBS/What's Trending) - They say if you don't like the topic, change the conversation. Or, "If you don't like your favorite political figure getting roasted by the news media for failing to describe Paul Revere's historic nighttime ride, change the facts on Revere's Wikipedia page." That's just what Sarah Palin supporters did over the weekend apparently, after Palin took flack for stating that Revere "warned the British" on that famous night.

As the heat started to build, intrepid historians apparently attempted to add the following line (in italics) to Revere's Wikipedia page:

"Revere did not shout the phrase later attributed to him ('The British are coming!'), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with british army patrols; also, most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects."​
Click to expand...

Whenever I hear a story like this... I feel like Jerry Seinfeld: "Who are these people? Who are these people that support Sarah Palin?"
 
Misterveritis said:
Pretty dim bulb there. Liberal, right?
Click to expand...

Nope. A Conservative second and a Realist first. A liberal/retarded thing to do is to attack like you just did without a constructive argument. Good job.
 
deltabtry said:
Doesn't matter, I got the message that Palin was trying to say, addlibbed or otherwise, if you can recite the Gettysburg address verbally and verbatim then you have a leg to stand on with your complaint not to mention I would be impressed. All I can say is feel the hate, embrace it and let it flow through your veins and you will feel the power of the left.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You think this is about hate? Does that mean that all of the Conservatives who poke fun at Obama's gaffe do so because they hate him?

Just so ya know, I do it cause it's hysterical .... almost as funny as the defense mounted by the Palin cultists.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Bodhi is going to feel completely insulted, lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah... and hurt too.

Actually, after having the BPD wife that I did, not much really bothers me.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Seriously? You think this is about hate? Does that mean that all of the Conservatives who poke fun at Obama's gaffe do so because they hate him?

Just so ya know, I do it cause it's hysterical .... almost as funny as the defense mounted by the Palin cultists.
Click to expand...
Nah..just poking the hornets nest, but you have to admit you people are quick to jump in the frey and do so just to jump in.
 
deltabtry said:
Quote from the Director, this is not saying Palin was wrong..
"Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British".
Click to expand...

"Could be construed?" So she's actually a history professor with her own perfectly valid, if not widely accepted, interpretation? Show us the PhD! The long form PhD, if you don't mind.

Look, she made a mistake. She misspoke. But can we be adults and say that? No we get "Could be construed as." Just say she made a mistake and move on. Your defenses of her are freakin' hilarious. If she was a Liberal, your attacks would be the same as the attacks on her. BOTH WOULD DESERVE IT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom