Sarah Palin: Paul Revere's Ride to Protect the Second Amendment

danarhea said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

SheWolf said:

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...

Click to expand...

Imagine what we'll get in the highly unlikely event that she is ever elected president. It boggles the mind.

VanceMack said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's why I can't really say she is honest to God stupid... I think she just doesn't know wtf to do and say. She's like a deer in the headlights and freezes up. She is good at somethings... being a novelty and playing role model for the GOP image of a Conservative woman. But she is not good at answering questions, solving problems, offering ideas, or communicating to people outside her base.

BDBoop said:

The Palin Apologists Strike Back! - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes

Click to expand...

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:

Gargantuan said:

I like your dogs ptif

Click to expand...

Thanx I appreciate that

SheWolf said:

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...

Click to expand...

The idiots are the liberals that say she is wrong when historians say she is right.

Historians agree: Palin was right about Paul Revere

apdst said:

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.

Click to expand...

You're changing the subject... Palin wasn't saying **** about the British or their intentions. She was discussing Revere and his motives and goals.

SheWolf said:

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:

Click to expand...

Honestly, I am not even a history buff and I knew that Paul Revere was not ringing bells and shooting his rifle. Most of my knowledge (past grade school knowledge) of his ride comes the book "Tipping Point" where Malcolm Gladwell discusses how Paul Revere was more successful than his comrades because he was a "connector", in that he knew LOTS of influential people. So while the other riders were just going around ringing bells and yelling about the red coats, Revere was knocking on the doors of people who could actually make a difference.

Palin, uhh, clearly was not aware of any of that. She clearly had a cartoonish picture of the event where Revere shot his guns and rang bells and all of the "patriotic Americans" were roused from bed and went to fight the evil British.

apdst said:

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".

Click to expand...

Again, this has nothing to do with whatever you argue that the British were doing. Her statement was about Revere and his motives.

"First off, Revere’s mission took place at the behest of Dr. Joseph Warren, a Boston leader of the revolutionary cause, for the purpose of warning Samuel Adams and John Hancock – who were staying at the Hancock home – that the British soliders were likely coming to arrest them and that they would do well to get out of the house before they were taken.

Further, while it is absolutely true that the British did have their eye on the gunpowder stockpiles at Concord, Revere’s mission had absolutely zero to do with this. He was all about getting to Adams and Hancock while passing the word along the way of the coming arrival of the British Regulars. Thus, using this bit of history to find some basis in Palin’s remark that, “He who warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms….” is as absurd as the original statement and only serves to further highlight the same."

The Palin Apologists Strike Back! - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes

ptif219 said:

The idiots are the liberals that say she is wrong when historians say she is right.

Historians agree: Palin was right about Paul Revere

Click to expand...

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.

The right to bear arms didn't exist then... Revere didn't protect our gun rights in any sense... lol

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

SheWolf said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

winston53660 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The indians were liberal fascists

Gargantuan said:

The indians were liberal fascists

Click to expand...

The Indians may have been. The Sikhs and Hindus, for example don't always get along so well. I'm not sure whether that is racism, or just two different cultures sharing the same space.

SheWolf said:

You're changing the subject... Palin wasn't saying **** about the British or their intentions. She was discussing Revere and his motives and goals.

Click to expand...

No matter what historians say you continue to show your hate for Palin. I know what that shows me about who is stupid

Gargantuan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

SheWolf said:

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

Click to expand...

Because she was correct and the liberals are wrong as usual

ptif219 said:

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

Click to expand...

Did you read it?

Prof. ALLISON: Well, he's not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ptif219 said:

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

Click to expand...

From your link:

Well, he's not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others.

Click to expand...

So he is not ringing bells nor firing warning shots like Palin said he was doing.

And again from your link:

Revere isn't trying to alert the British,

Click to expand...

So, again unlike Palin said he is not warning the "regulars".

whysoserious said:

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.

Click to expand...

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. 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.

BLOCK:Sarah Palin also was saying there that Paul Revere's message to the British in his warning was: You're not going to take American arms - you know, basically a Second Amendment argument, even though the Second Amendment didn't exist then.

Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.

So, yeah, she is right in that. I mean, she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case. Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone's mind at the time. But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She's not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.

winston53660 said:

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".

Click to expand...

Your leaving out the parts where he says she is right but of course I would expect nothing more from you

Tucson Citizen

[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.

Click to expand...

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:

Prof. ALLISON: Well, he's not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

whysoserious said:

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.

Click to expand...

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