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.
OMG. I haven't seen the clip till just now. I don't know if I should laugh or call her a ****ing idiot. If I call her an ****ing idiot, I feel kind of bad... so after giving it some thought, I lost the moment. It's gone. Laughing would be forced now. I guess my reaction is now just simply.... WTF.
When Palin speaks without notes or add libs, this is the **** you get...
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.
I like your dogs ptif
OMG. I haven't seen the clip till just now. I don't know if I should laugh or call her a ****ing idiot. If I call her an ****ing idiot, I feel kind of bad... so after giving it some thought, I lost the moment. It's gone. Laughing would be forced now. I guess my reaction is now just simply.... WTF.
When Palin speaks without notes or add libs, this is the **** you get...
Actually, it wasn't about putting down a rebelling--mispeak perhaps?--as much as it was about disarming the local militia to prevent an uprising. It wasn't until the next day that the Brits found out that they were dealing with a full blown armed revolution.
It is an historical fact, that on 18 April, 1775, the British mission was to disarm the rebels. On 19 April, they figgered out that the fit had hit the shan. If the British had a single clue that they were walking into a real live firefight, they would have made sure they weren't outnumbered 2 to 1. The British tactical doctrine of the period was to meet force with overwhelming force. They were, by then, experts at using economy of force. Their being caught off gaurd explains where there wasn't any cavalry present at Lexington, nor Concord.
The only reason Paul Reveres name stuck is because it was easier to remember than Israel Bissell. You think Palin would have know that, if she's really the scholar of history her supporters pretend she is now. Digging up letters and finding vague little things to help her out... :lol:
Ask any other politician in this country the same question and I doubt the answer would have been any better. Hell, most of the people on this thread don't even know that the British mission was to simply disarm the militia and confiscate weapons caches and that the British were, "invading".
The idiots are the liberals that say she is wrong when historians say she is right.
Historians agree: Palin was right about Paul Revere
Why is it so hard for some people to admit Palin says some dumb **** sometimes? She doesn't have a chance to be president, so I don't know why they are fighting for her... lol
Because they believe in an idealized notion of the USA where people never committed genocide (American Indians) nor the government endorsed slavery and we are all good little followers of the Christian religion.
The indians were liberal fascists
You're changing the subject... Palin wasn't saying **** about the British or their intentions. She was discussing Revere and his motives and goals.
No they don't. That site is bull****. There were two separate occasions with Revere ptif. Once when he went to warn the revolutionaries that the British were planning to arrest them, and another time when he was arrested by the British and he told them that the revolutionaries were armed and ready to fight. The part about the British wanting to take away their arms was wrong.
Why is it so hard for some people to admit Palin says some dumb **** sometimes? She doesn't have a chance to be president, so I don't know why they are fighting for her... lol
How about NPR? How many historians will it take for you to realize she was right
How Accurate Were Palin's Paul Revere Comments? : NPR
Prof. ALLISON: Well, he's not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others.
Prof. ALLISON: ...But he, personally, is not getting off his horse and going to ring bells. He's telling other people - and this is their system before Facebook, before Twitter, before NPR - this was the way you get a message out, is by having people ring church bells, and everyone knows there is an emergency.
How about NPR? How many historians will it take for you to realize she was right
How Accurate Were Palin's Paul Revere Comments? : NPR
Well, he's not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others.
Revere isn't trying to alert the British,
Did you read it?
Besides the fact that this guy thinks the listeners are idiots by letting us know that Paul Revere didn't have Twitter (thanks for that amazing bit of knowledge), he did get to admitting that at no point was Revere shooting warning shots or ringing bells.
From your link:
So he is not ringing bells nor firing warning shots like Palin said he was doing.
And again from your link:
So, again unlike Palin said he is not warning the "regulars".
[Paul Revere] warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure as he was 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.
Prof. ALLISON: Well, he's not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others.
Prof. ALLISON: ...But he, personally, is not getting off his horse and going to ring bells. He's telling other people - and this is their system before Facebook, before Twitter, before NPR - this was the way you get a message out, is by having people ring church bells, and everyone knows there is an emergency.
Tucson Citizen
Her words. Now, the whole "warning the British" thing never really bothered me that much as I thought it to be a slip of the tongue though some say she is correct, but the ringing of bells and shooting guns thing is what caught my eye. She even mentioned the bells twice, so it's not like she did it by accident. From your post:
So clearly, she got that entire piece wrong. And it's not so much that she got it wrong. I do not care about that, but considering she is the one "promoting America" and she just took a tour, you'd think she could get something right.
How much could you have possibly been paying attention if 30 seconds after leaving the place your only comment about it had one part that was questionable (the warning the British part) and the other part completely false (the ringing of bells and shooting guns by Revere)? That's like here taking a tour of the Museum of Natural history and then coming out and talking about how she learned the Earth was only 6,000 years old.