• 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 fact this thread, this subject, has gone for this long, makes me wanna jump off a bridge because theres no hope for the ****ing human race at this point.

Do us a favor and take Palin with you.
 
Every time we have a poll about gaffes in general everyone always says "Ya gaffes are gaffes, they just happen sometimes" but the second you change it from a vague generality and a specific person, there are no gaffes there is only excuses and claims of absolute proof someone is stupid.

Except.... its neither, its just a damn gaffe.
 
Every time we have a poll about gaffes in general everyone always says "Ya gaffes are gaffes, they just happen sometimes" but the second you change it from a vague generality and a specific person, there are no gaffes there is only excuses and claims of absolute proof someone is stupid.

Except.... its neither, its just a damn gaffe.

Yeah. Except, uh... this wasn't a gaffe and it made all her haters look stupid and uneducated.
 
Yeah. Except, uh... this wasn't a gaffe and it made all her haters look stupid and uneducated.

I guess that goes for her supporters here then, I mean if what she said was true, which as far as I can see so far hasn't been sourced, why did it take a few days and a blogger to expose the "truth." Surely if it was something any educated and non-stupid person would know, then why didn't any of her supporters here at DP jump forward with this information right away? Or is it more likely none of you considered it until the first topic claim she was right all along popped up, citing some blog no less. I guess none of us knows our history then?
 
Basically it comes down to this all, all the sources brought forward to support Palin have said Revere was captured by the Britsh and warned them that the local militia was forming up. Ok fine, I accept that. However what Palin said was that he warned them they wouldnt be taking away our arms. Fine, but the two statements aren't the same, they don't convey the same information. Telling someone "Hey there's militia over there" is not the same as saying a defiant statement of "You'll never take our weapons!"

Or are they the same statement in your eyes?

Or is it more likely she just had a brain fart?
 
They don't look stupid and uneducated because they didn't know history. Hell, I didn't know there was anything about bells, or mis-direction of the brits (warning them to stay away from lexington),or him being captured or them trying to seize arms. All I knew is he said "The British are coming". Hopefully, that's still true. Anyway...

They look stupid because they jumped on her, as usual; and, it turns out she was reasonably based in reality.

Really, one must admit she's taught us all about Paul Revere. Some people showed ass in the process, but that's fun too.
 
Last edited:
They don't look stupid and uneducated because they didn't know history. Hell, I didn't know there was anything about bells, or mis-direction of the brits (warning them to stay away from lexington),or him being captured or them trying to seize arms. All I knew is he said "The British are coming". Hopefully, that's still true. Anyway...

They look stupid because they jumped on her, as usual; and, it turns out she was reasonably based in reality.

Ok if thats your opinion tell me your thought process which led you to conclude that "There are militia forming here" is the same statement as "You'll never take our guns." Thats what it all boils down to, we know what she said and we know what the source said, the disagreement is over if they mean the same thing, because if they dont she was wrong and if they do she was right. Thats the fundamental question to all of this, so you must think they were the same or at least similar enough so that a little rephrasing would still convey the same message. So tell me why you think they are the same or at lest similar.

Personally I think they are totally different, but I think she was wrong just due to a simple gaffe, and I don't think she's stupid or uneducated because of this. I think she's unqualified to be President or hold any political office, but that opinion doesn't stem from this little gaffe, neither does this gaffe re-inforce that opinion in me in any way, its totally irrelevant to anything as far as I'm concerned.
 
He told them that the militia were forming there so that they would not take the guns (and capture a couple dudes). That's good enough for me.

Maybe I don't care enough, but I probably do.
You go ahead and care more, it's all you.
 
Last edited:
He told them that the militia were forming there so that they would not take the guns (and capture a couple dudes). That's good enough for me.

Maybe I don't care enough, but I probably do.
You go ahead and care more, it's all you.

Fair enough. I realize its just an opinion, I can't prove one statement is similar or not, similarity is just a relative opinion. Now I don't really care about this gaffe, I thought that was clear but hey the fact you didn't realize it is just more proof that similarity is relative, since I thought it was obviously inferred from my statements. That's not meant to be insulting at all.

I just got involved here because I saw what I considered a denial of reality on many people's part that this statement by Palin was anything more than a brain fart, that denial of reality includes both her haters who think its absolute evidence she's retarded and her supporters who claim she was dead on the money and everyone else is an idiot. Basically we are all stupid for making such a mountain of a topic out of what originally was a 30 second or so clip.
 
Were it not for Palin and her brave crusade, the children (and adults) of the US of A would not know crap about Paul Revere. She is single-handedly solving the education problem while simultaneously bringing us back to our American roots.


This much is obvious.
 
Basically it comes down to this all, all the sources brought forward to support Palin have said Revere was captured by the Britsh and warned them that the local militia was forming up. Ok fine, I accept that. However what Palin said was that he warned them they wouldnt be taking away our arms. Fine, but the two statements aren't the same, they don't convey the same information. Telling someone "Hey there's militia over there" is not the same as saying a defiant statement of "You'll never take our weapons!"

Or are they the same statement in your eyes?

Or is it more likely she just had a brain fart?
She also made the false claim that Revere warned the British "by ringing those bells," only there is no source which reveals him ringing any bells as a warning sign to the British.

But hey, since when does accuracy matter to cultists?
 
It seems he was a big part of a bell ringing thing. Apparently bells were rung. Maybe he rang a bell, or a few; would that substantively change the account?

Good enough. I'll give her a B-, since I didn't know crap about this before. Perhaps she stumbled on some words, like 'he' - 'they'.
 
Last edited:
It seems he was a big part of a bell ringing thing. Apparently bells were rung. Maybe he rang a bell, or a few; would that substantively change the account?
Well since her version was that he rung bells to warn the British, which is ludicrous, I would say that substantially changes the account.
 
Been posted MANY times here, apdst. No amount of spin is going to change the fact that she misspoke.

Hell, I even had it as my sig file for awhile there.

"He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."
 
I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I have confused you with someone else? She is not a storyteller or a historian. She mangled her answer. But, despite all of that, in my opinion, after reading R. Revere's memorandum, she still got it right.

Fair enough... that is all that I have really said. She mangled her answer and it all hinges on the term, "warn". This term has many different interpretations. Those that use it to attack Palin are acting silly. Those that are defending Palin to their last breath are acting silly. Really, we have a lot of silly people acting silly. The whole thing is silly. Silly is a really retarded word.
 
She said that she has foreign policy experience because she was the Governor of Alaska and talked to Russia about "trade". If she was infact doing that, she is in violation of the constitution, which explicitly prohibits states from engaging in foreign relations with other nations.

trade =/= foriegn policy. Governors go to and talk to other businesses and other governments about trade all the time.
 
He wasn't warning the British.
He didn't ring any bells.
He didn't fire any warning shots.

Here's what an actual historian has to say on the subject.

Prof. ALLISON: 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.

Remember, Gage was planning - this is a secret operation; that's why he's moving at night. He gets over to Cambridge, the troops start marching from Cambridge, and church bells are ringing throughout the countryside.

BLOCK: So Paul Revere was ringing those bells? He was a silversmith, right?

Prof. ALLISON: Well, he was - he also was a bell ringer. That is, he rang the bells at Old North Church as a boy. 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.

And by this time, of course, the various town committees of safety, militia knew what the signals were, so they knew something was afoot. So this is no longer a secret operation for the British.

Revere isn't trying to alert the British, but he is trying to warn them. And in April of 1775, no one was talking about independence. We're still part of the British Empire. We're trying to save it. So this is a warning to the British Empire what will happen if you provoke Americans.

How Accurate Were Palin's Paul Revere Comments? : NPR

If you think he's wrong, then you need to start ****ting some documentation to prove it. So far, all the documentation available swings in Palin's favor.




As a side note, she talks like a hick. Is she tool important to finish a word and can she talk without saying uh and um?

Superiority complex much?
 
Unfortunately for you, that's exactly what she said ... I quoted her verbatim:
"He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells" ~ Sarah "The Quitter" Palin
Still waiting for you to show how Paul Revere warned the British by ringing bells?

And still waiting for you to answer, do you think Obama doesn't know what year it is or do you think he had a brain fart when he wrote 2008?

From an actual historian on the subject, as far as the bells go.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, he was - he also was a bell ringer. That is, he rang the bells at Old North Church as a boy. 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 Accurate Were Palin's Paul Revere Comments? : NPR

Palin never said that Revere was personally ringing bells.
 
Been posted MANY times here, apdst. No amount of spin is going to change the fact that she misspoke.

Evidence proving that she didn't misspeak has been posted, as well.
 
Here's what an actual historian has to say on the subject.

If you think he's wrong, then you need to start ****ting some documentation to prove it. So far, all the documentation available swings in Palin's favor.
Nah, it does not all favor Palin.

American historians say they dispute Sarah Palin's Paul Revere ride interpretation, agreeing the patriot was not warning the British.

  • "He didn't warn the British, that's her most obvious blooper." ~ James Giblin, author of "The Many Rides of Paul Revere"
  • "Revere's assignment that night was to go to Lexington to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were moving in that direction from Boston." ~ Kristin Peszka, director of interpretation and visitor's services at the Paul Revere House

Aside from that, I can only conclude you refuse to answer if you believe Obama doesn't really know what year it is vs. if he merely suffered from a brain fart when he wrote 2008 because the obvious answer is that it was a brain fart.

Sarah "The Quitter" Palin removed all doubt that she suffered a brain fart when she insisted she was right. In her case, it is clearly ignorance.
 
Nah, it does not all favor Palin.

American historians say they dispute Sarah Palin's Paul Revere ride interpretation, agreeing the patriot was not warning the British.

  • "He didn't warn the British, that's her most obvious blooper." ~ James Giblin, author of "The Many Rides of Paul Revere"
  • "Revere's assignment that night was to go to Lexington to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were moving in that direction from Boston." ~ Kristin Peszka, director of interpretation and visitor's services at the Paul Revere House

Aside from that, I can only conclude you refuse to answer if you believe Obama doesn't really know what year it is vs. if he merely suffered from a brain fart when he wrote 2008 because the obvious answer is that it was a brain fart.

Sarah "The Quitter" Palin removed all doubt that she suffered a brain fart when she insisted she was right. In her case, it is clearly ignorance.

A visitor's center director? really?
 
So, the historians that say she got it right, spun their information?

You can prove that, I'm sure?

Ths spun information is what was presented. This was about "Revere's Ride" not what happened after. That's how you folks have spun it.
 
Back
Top Bottom