• 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

I can HEAR the machinations going off in her head..."holly...crap what did you just say? STOP!!! Just stop...dont go full retard...PLEASE dont go full retard...crap...you went full retard..."

She kinda does have a deer in headlights look about her when she gets asked some fairly simple questions, doesn't she? Maybe it's a side-effect of beauty pageant training.
 
She kinda does have a deer in headlights look about her when she gets asked some fairly simple questions, doesn't she? Maybe it's a side-effect of beauty pageant training.

Thats what I'm sayin. She should have gone of to the mountains, studied with some political Guru, learned basic Q and A skills. Look, MOST politicians are like this early in their careers. It takes a while to become a 'statesman.' Thats kind of her problem. She is attractive, she has charisma, she ahs many of the tools she would need...she just comes across like a doofus any time she has to answer a question.
 
apdst does have a point about the issue being somewhat related to protecting their ability to weild weapons. Although it isn't really about defending their right to keep and bear arms so much as it was about defending their ability to wage a rebelling against the crown.

It was more accurately military strategy rather than attempted political oppression. The British were aware that a rebellion was mounting, and that the rebels had a weapons stash in Concord


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.

On April 14, 1775, Gage received instructions from Secretary of State William Legge, Earl of Dartmouth, to disarm the rebels, who were known to have hidden weapons in Concord, among other locations, and to imprison the rebellion's leaders, especially Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Dartmouth gave Gage considerable discretion in his commands.

Battles of Lexington and Concord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The Palin Apologists Strike Back! - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes

Giving the Governor the benefit of the doubt, I suspect what Palin has done is take the story of Israel Bissell and garble it up with the Paul Revere adventure to come up with the imagery that would bolster her point.

Bissell is an unsung hero of the Revolutionary War who, independent of Paul Revere, had been sent to warn the colonists that the war had begun. Bissell accomplished his mission by riding into towns, ringing the church bell and firing his musket to get the attention of the residents so that he could pass along his message.
 
Thats what I'm sayin. She should have gone of to the mountains, studied with some political Guru, learned basic Q and A skills. Look, MOST politicians are like this early in their careers. It takes a while to become a 'statesman.' Thats kind of her problem. She is attractive, she has charisma, she ahs many of the tools she would need...she just comes across like a doofus any time she has to answer a question.

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".
 
A columnist to the rescue of History!
 
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.

Odd that you would be so technical about my typing mistake, yet chose to misquote me on the words that preceded that mistake. Misread perhaps?




It is an historical fact, that on 18 April, 1775, the British mission was to disarm the rebels.

Interesting that you contradict yourself immediately after trying to "correct" something you made up and pretended that I said.
 
Odd that you would be so technical about my typing mistake, yet chose to misquote me on the words that preceded that mistake. Misread perhaps?






Interesting that you contradict yourself immediately after trying to "correct" something you made up and pretended that I said.

I guess that's your way of admitting that you're wrong? Nice smoke and mirrors.
 
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".

And if ANY other politician in the country gave this type of an answer I'd blast that person too.
 
Probably the same thing O'Bama was talking when he said that he'd visited 57 states. Mispoke, perhaps? Or, at least that's the excuse we hear from the same Libbos on this thread that are berating Sarah.
You should know the day Obama said that he was running on fumes. He said that here in Oregon after visiting two other states on the campaign trail.



snopes.com: Barack Obama and 57 States
 
Why don't you dazzle us with your historical knowledge of the period? Thanks in advance.

Perhaps you can explain to us how O'Bama's American grandpaw liberated Auschwitz. I'm sure that would be interesting as hell. Can't wait for that.

This thread is about Palin and not me. I am not on some "screw the media we gonna keep em guessing yeeee haw tour"..
 
Sarah Palin is a maroon of the first order and this only reinforces it. She should do herself a favor and just let the last 3 or 4 minutes of her 15 minute run go...just let it go.

She should just let Piper speak as it is clear over past few days that Piper is much smarter than her mother:)
 
She is warning us about the British taking our arms? Why does she have to make a historic moment into a second amendment debate? Oh right, because she's republican and she endorses guns. And there were no shots being fired or bells ringings. It was a lantern though,
 
We don't want your guns, honestly! We prefer our society without them, thanks all the same.
 
There are better things to deal with.

**** I didn't even know who the **** Paul Revere was until this story so... oh well.
 
I wish people's fascination with celebrity would take a back seat to the practical politics of what our country needs right now.

There are too many talking heads and not enough succinct dialogue happening. These characters are done up by the glitz and glam of the camera, but at the end of the day we should be considering who is best qualified to talk about and represent America.

I have earnestly listened to Sarah Palin and given her a chance, just like I would anyone who was a vice presidential candidate. She's come a long way since then. I do not think she is someone I want being part of our political process, but in her interviews has demonstrated improvements in her knowledge.

People's obsession with certain characters needs to be transcended. I've spoken with some really intelligent people out there, but others seem to not be able to get beyond the personality level of what they're taking in from the media.
 
I hope Palin runs for President, I think it'll be a nice wake up call for many people as they are forced to listen to this woman for almost a year while runs. However, she'll never run. Why? She can't win and she's making too much money to throw it all away, along with her reputation on a political campaign. There's just too much money in yelling "yea-haw" gosh darn.
 
There are better things to deal with.

**** I didn't even know who the **** Paul Revere was until this story so... oh well.

What a horrible American you make

Had you grown up in Canada you would have know who he is and his Ride
 
Ya'll are aware that the mission of that British force was to disarm the local militia. Right?

It would be very hard to argue that opposing that mission wasn't supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

Looks like Sarah knows more about history than...well...just about everyone on this thread.

But, hey, don't let historical facts get in the way of partisan hackery.

Yes. Perhaps we should all stop getting our history from poems.
 
Back
Top Bottom