• 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

Or when she was asked what the Bush doctrine is and she had absolutely no idea. Real gotcha question right?

Or when she was asked to name one supreme court decision she agreed with. One. Friggin one.

Any idiot who went to high school can spit out Miranda. Brown v Board of Education.

How about Bush v Gore? She must have agreed with that. Could she explain it?
 
she keeps the liberals in here, talking about her... instead of out fixing the problems within their own party.

Its time for the clowns to take a seat so the circus can begin.
 
It's the media with all the gotcha questions.

Funny that its Sarah that consistently gets "got". If you can't hit a softball, you'll never hit a hardball and you will never be president.

She would fair much better if she were actually reasonably educated and humble enough not to speak when she had no clue about the subject at hand.
 
Last edited:
THEY DIDN'T ASK HER ANYTHING ABOUT PAUL REVERE. They asked her "What have you seen so far today and what are you going to take away from your visit?" She then proceeded to bring up Paul Revere on her own.

Dude, they were at a Paul Revere museum. What did they expect her to talk about?

Funny that its Sarah that consistently gets "got". If you can't hit a softball, you'll never hit a hardball and you will never be president.

She would fair much better if she were actually reasonably educated and humble enough not to speak when she had no clue about the subject at hand.

She had just taken the tour and did not quite have the details put together right, that is all. Had Obama said something like that the reaction would have been, "He is working too hard" or "That was just a slip of the tongue" yet from the very beginning with Sarah Palin it was all about her intelligence. Of course, part of it was things she said that the media deliberately butchered. Honestly, it is like they saw some country woman with lots of kids and traditional values then immediately presume she is a dunce and treat her accordingly.

I am more curious about the fact that, for someone with a lot of public speaking engagements who is supposedly a complete idiot, she seems to have about as many gaffes as the next politico.
 
Her gaffes are pure idiocy though. No other politician's gaffes are not knowing what a doctrine is, or knowing what a supreme court case is. She is a complete and total idiot plain and simple. She was wrong about Paul Revere for the reasons I explained and many others in here did, and yet she still gets it wrong. HELL the network she gets her paycheck from tried to help her get through it and she ****ed them over too!
 
Her gaffes are pure idiocy though. No other politician's gaffes are not knowing what a doctrine is, or knowing what a supreme court case is. She is a complete and total idiot plain and simple. She was wrong about Paul Revere for the reasons I explained and many others in here did, and yet she still gets it wrong. HELL the network she gets her paycheck from tried to help her get through it and she ****ed them over too!

But it is okay if you do not know what year it is. Your bias is showing
 
But it is okay if you do not know what year it is. Your bias is showing

That is not a valid comparison. Palin's gaffes are constant and continually display her shallow grasp of almost anything she talks about.
 
Her gaffes are pure idiocy though. No other politician's gaffes are not knowing what a doctrine is, or knowing what a supreme court case is.

Her gaffes are actually pretty standard. The two instances you mention actually are those gotcha questions that get thrown out by the media. Expecting her to know exactly what is meant by the Bush doctrine, a term that has had many interpretations over the years, is just typical "gotcha" journalism. The same goes for the vague question about naming a specific Supreme court case she disagrees with other than Roe v. Wade. It doesn't make her an idiot. She probably would have been able to name other Supreme Court cases, just not necessarily ones she disagrees with.

It is not the kind of question candidates are usually asked because the whole point of the media action was to convince everyone that this down-home country girl was an uneducated airhead who should not be allowed anywhere near the halls of power. Honestly, I believe the real reason is that the establishment strongly dislikes her as she has shown a tendency to be too independent in her political attitudes.

Unlike the faux maverick McCain Sarah Palin has made a habit of spitting in the face of her party's establishment, as well as the general political establishment.
 
How much stupider can she get? Perhaps she has negative IQ. Wait! That's an insult to people who has negative IQ!
 
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.


You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British? Well, he did. Now, who looks stupid?

ou may have heard recently something about that Sarah Palin telling a reporter that Paul Revere warned the British on his famous rousing revolutionary ride.

Now, that so many Americans have wallowed in their smug confirmation that Palin is an idiot unqualified for anything but repeating sixth-grade history, how far, wide and fast do you think the contradictory news will spread that the former governor of Alaska was indeed correct?

That the Republican non-candidate, in fact, knew more about the actual facts of Revere's midnight ride than all those idiots unknowingly revealing their own ignorance by laughing at her faux faux pas? How secretly embarrassing this must be, to be forced to face that you're dumber than the reputed dummy.
You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British? Well, he did. Now, who looks stupid? - latimes.com

Danarhea, dummer then the "dummy" Sarah Palin.
 
How so? I don't recall the people criticizing her for this having a skewed assessment of the Paul Revere story.

People were after her because they didn't know that Revere had told the British anything. They were wrong.
 
People were after her because they didn't know that Revere had told the British anything. They were wrong.

People were after her for two reasons. She misspoke about Revere warning the British on his "Midnight Ride" and because some liberal hacks look for any reason to attack her. This whole thing REALLY isn't a big deal.
 
The Wikipedia entry editing of Sarah Palin is not something new. I first saw it when Palin was tapped for VP by McCain in the summer of 08. I had heard through some political connections that it was going to Palin a day or sobefore it was announced and I looked her up on the site. Then the announcement came and it was as the old Thirties screen writer Robert Riskin has been given the assignment to turn her life into a Frank Capra movie designed to be both nostalgic and tear jerking. All of the sudden, there were new events listed there with touches that were absent just hours before. Somebody was actively redesigning Sarah Palin as a product for public consumption.

So this is nothing new and seems to be standard operating procedure with Palin.
 
Last edited:
soccerboy said:
No I am calling out the fact though people are saying she meant to say Revere warned the British, not the colonies. I mean let's be honest, this is probably a gaffe that ended up working more into her favor because she cannot be called an idiot like Bachmann for saying that Lexington and Concord was in New Hampshire.

Warning the British was not a part of the mission even tough Palin seems to think otherwise:

"Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that 'hey, you're not going to take American arms, you are not going to beat our own well-armed persons individual private militia that we have.'"

1. that's not a gaffe (which would be relatively meaningless in and of itself) of switching out the word "colonist" for "British" - that's an actual depiction of what happened.
2. Part of his ride was that he told a bunch of British soldiers that they were going to fail.

when you are reduced to arguing semantics in order to make someone else look stupid, all that happens is you end up looking petty and desperate.
 
Hurt feelings because someone criticized Sarah Palin. Idiot, right?
It does not bother me in the least that any of you make fun of Palin or any other politician. No. It is your inability to recognize that Palin actually got the story right. Paul Revere, in his own memorandum, said essentially the same thing as Palin. Only he said it better and he said it first. I am poking at your inability to understand. Nothing more. Nothing less.
 
If liberal democrats spent HALF as much time trying to fix the problems in their own party as they spend whining like little girls about Palin...



I'm just sayin.
 
If this episode causes any Republicans rally around Sarah Palin and view her as smart and intelligent and a possible candidate for the Presidency in 2012 - I welcome that. We can not have enough Republican support for Palin. This is turning out perfectly.
 
If conservative republicans spent HALF as much time trying to fix the problems in their own party as they spend whining like little girls about Obama...



I'm just sayin.

Whoa, that was easy. See how much substance there is in your comments (none)?
 
1. that's not a gaffe (which would be relatively meaningless in and of itself) of switching out the word "colonist" for "British" - that's an actual depiction of what happened.
2. Part of his ride was that he told a bunch of British soldiers that they were going to fail.

when you are reduced to arguing semantics in order to make someone else look stupid, all that happens is you end up looking petty and desperate.

Was he ringing bells and shooting off guns?
 
I guarantee President Obama knows what year it is, don't be silly.

There's documentation to prove that he doesn't, or at least, didn't.
 
People were after her for two reasons. She misspoke about Revere warning the British on his "Midnight Ride" and because some liberal hacks look for any reason to attack her. This whole thing REALLY isn't a big deal.


What were her exact words?
 
1. that's not a gaffe (which would be relatively meaningless in and of itself) of switching out the word "colonist" for "British" - that's an actual depiction of what happened.

FALSE.

2. Part of his ride was that he told a bunch of British soldiers that they were going to fail.

FALSE AGAIN.

DOUBLE FAIL.

Unless you mean the part of his ride when he was captured...
:lamo:lamo:lamo




when you are reduced to arguing semantics in order to make someone else look stupid, all that happens is you end up looking petty and desperate.

Don't confuse semantics with FACTS. You make your argument look stupid.
 
Back
Top Bottom