• 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

The people are told to ring bells so she has it right

So, in your opinion:

[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.

... is no different than her saying, "Paul Revere told people to ring bells and shoot off guns"?
 
So, in your opinion:



... is no different than her saying, "Paul Revere told people to ring bells and shoot off guns"?

Historians said she was correct and you want to cherry pick because you are so partisan Palin could never be right.

Keep trying but the left calling historians liars just shows they have no credibility
 
Historians said she was correct and you want to cherry pick because you are so partisan Palin could never be right.

Keep trying but the left calling historians liars just shows they have no credibility

Maybe if you say she was correct enough times, people will start to believe it. :doh
 
Calling historians liars shows who wants to repeat enough times.

I don't think they are necessarily liars. I think they are biased. The bottom line is that she ****ed up. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread. The Palin supporters have gotten to the point now where they are basically saying "Nuh uh!" in the face of the evidence that has been shown. A couple of historians have claimed that she was correct in her assessment. That's hardly enough to support that she didn't **** up, especially if these historians have an agenda.
 
I don't think they are necessarily liars. I think they are biased. The bottom line is that she ****ed up. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread. The Palin supporters have gotten to the point now where they are basically saying "Nuh uh!" in the face of the evidence that has been shown. A couple of historians have claimed that she was correct in her assessment. That's hardly enough to support that she didn't **** up, especially if these historians have an agenda.

The sources I used lean left so where is the Bias. I guess now a historian stating facts is bias
 
The sources I used lean left so where is the Bias. I guess now a historian stating facts is bias

Where is the proof that they lean left, or is this just your assessment?
 
So, in your opinion:



... is no different than her saying, "Paul Revere told people to ring bells and shoot off guns"?

As usual, you ignore the big picture.

The general procedure to warn people of impending events like the British marching into town, was to shoot off guns, ring bells, go from house to house and actually warn people, etc. etc. etc. THAT... is what Palin was trying (and failing quite spectacularly) to say with her comment.

Feel free to read into it anything your partisan little heart desires.
 
Historians said she was correct and you want to cherry pick because you are so partisan Palin could never be right.

Keep trying but the left calling historians liars just shows they have no credibility

And some historians say she is incorrect. People on both sides of this are cherry picking historians. It's hilarious.
 
And some historians say she is incorrect. People on both sides of this are cherry picking historians. It's hilarious.

They are, the point is she wasn't 100% wrong. Revere did ride out warning people of the British, they did ring bells to alert the people and such. But she's not 100% right either. It was not the intended purpose of Revere's ride to warn the British as she claimed. Rather he was captured by the British where in he tried to discourage them from going to Lexington or Concord. In the end, from the context of her statements, it seemed like she was trying to draw analogies to our current 2nd amendment and the necessity of the People to keep arms. I'm not disagreeing that the 2nd is very important and that one of the reasons for it being there are to allow the People to fight tyranny and treason even if it comes at the hands of the government. But there was no real 2nd amendment issue with Revere and what he was doing. Nor was it Revere's cause to warn the British at all.
 
They are, the point is she wasn't 100% wrong. Revere did ride out warning people of the British, they did ring bells to alert the people and such. But she's not 100% right either. It was not the intended purpose of Revere's ride to warn the British as she claimed. Rather he was captured by the British where in he tried to discourage them from going to Lexington or Concord. In the end, from the context of her statements, it seemed like she was trying to draw analogies to our current 2nd amendment and the necessity of the People to keep arms. I'm not disagreeing that the 2nd is very important and that one of the reasons for it being there are to allow the People to fight tyranny and treason even if it comes at the hands of the government. But there was no real 2nd amendment issue with Revere and what he was doing. Nor was it Revere's cause to warn the British at all.

He didn't do the bells or guns either. So once you add what you just said to the "no bells or guns" bit - she wasn't right. Period. If she'd had to say "Paul Revere" in her statement, she probably would have flubbed that as well.
 
You know, no one ever answered my question. Did Palin ever actually mention the 2nd amendment, or was that something the detractors 'assumed' she was referring to.
 
They are, the point is she wasn't 100% wrong. Revere did ride out warning people of the British, they did ring bells to alert the people and such. But she's not 100% right either. It was not the intended purpose of Revere's ride to warn the British as she claimed. Rather he was captured by the British where in he tried to discourage them from going to Lexington or Concord. In the end, from the context of her statements, it seemed like she was trying to draw analogies to our current 2nd amendment and the necessity of the People to keep arms. I'm not disagreeing that the 2nd is very important and that one of the reasons for it being there are to allow the People to fight tyranny and treason even if it comes at the hands of the government. But there was no real 2nd amendment issue with Revere and what he was doing. Nor was it Revere's cause to warn the British at all.

Revere did not do the bells either, trying to avoid capture. That's the thing. She is not 100 % wrong. She is not 100 % right. And it's not at all important, since the worst she did was mangle her words some and be a little ignorant of history that most people don't know either. And yet this thread is over 600 posts...
 
Revere did not do the bells either, trying to avoid capture. That's the thing. She is not 100 % wrong. She is not 100 % right. And it's not at all important, since the worst she did was mangle her words some and be a little ignorant of history that most people don't know either. And yet this thread is over 600 posts...

shhhhhhhh... the 1,000th poster in this thread gets a toaster.
 
I kinda do need a new toaster ....
 
Revere did not do the bells either, trying to avoid capture. That's the thing. She is not 100 % wrong. She is not 100 % right. And it's not at all important, since the worst she did was mangle her words some and be a little ignorant of history that most people don't know either. And yet this thread is over 600 posts...

Her instance that she was absolutely right is her undoing. If she had gone on in the Fox news interview and said "Well there is a little bit more to what happened that night....." she would have been fine. But far be it from her to humble herself to that of a lowly mortal.
 
Sorry... been searching for days, and I still can't find where anyone but Palin's detractors mentioned the 2nd amendment in regards to her Paul Revere comments.

Am I missing a quote of hers or something?
 
I'm only interested if it imprints a silhouette of Paul Revere on his horse.

Firing muskets and ringing bells while riding off to warn the British, or simply riding through town to warn the rebels?
 
Firing muskets and ringing bells while riding off to warn the British, or simply riding through town to warn the rebels?

Firings muskets, ringing bells and possibly even texting at the same time.
 
This will be my last post here:
It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena. . .who strives. . .who spends himself. . .and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt - Progressive.

I had not considered S. Palin before this. Now I shall.
 
This will be my last post here:


Theodore Roosevelt - Progressive.

I had not considered S. Palin before this. Now I shall.

What in the world has she done that would ever stand up to such a statement? Saying silly **** eqauls being a strong person stumbling? :coffeepap
 
And some historians say she is incorrect. People on both sides of this are cherry picking historians. It's hilarious.

Which historians? So far, all I've seen are an author and the manager of a gift shop.
 
Back
Top Bottom