• 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 wouldn't mind, at all:

I told him; and added that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up

These are his words, describing his warning when the British detained him.
Nope, nothing about arms in that warning. The words, "arms", "guns", "weapons", "pistols", etc..., are not even in there.
 
The statements could be considered close enough to a truth to be stretched into saying she meant what history recorded. But quite honestly, y'all trying defend her just can't bring yourselves to admit that she cocked it up more than you say she did.

She didn't do a very good job of explaining what she meant to the uninformed, but she wasn't wrong.

Unless, of course, you can show us some primary source documentation that proves she is wrong. Can you?
 
Nope, nothing about arms in that warning. The words, "arms", "guns", "weapons", "pistols", etc..., are not even in there.

I guess you don't understand what, "cached", means in the context of Revere's words?

I'll explain for you: when he mentions, "cache", he's talking about weapons. When he says that, "five hundred Americans would be there in short time", he meant that 500 Colonist militiamen would show up at that spot to collect those arms and be ready for action.
 
She didn't do a very good job of explaining what she meant to the uninformed, but she wasn't wrong.

Unless, of course, you can show us some primary source documentation that proves she is wrong. Can you?

I don't think at any point in the ride, it was Revere's mission to alert the British. He got captured, he lied to them so they wouldn't go to Lexington or Concord I believe. He wasn't intending to say anything about the arms or the Revolutionary Army taking them out, not as the initial purpose of the ride. These are things done after capture. It wasn't so much the 2nd amendment sort of argument that her initial statement makes it seem. As I said, what she said was close enough to a truth that others can interpret her as recounting history. But it's not 100%, and it was spoken fairly poorly.

In the end, with all the conservatives out there; there has to be one which holds to values as people claim Palin does and can speak well enough to clearly convey meaning. You should find that person.
 
Last edited:
Umm, yeah, that's exactly what she said...
"Part of his ride was to warn the British that we we're already there, that hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not gonna take American arms." ~ Sarah Palin
No part of his ride was to warn the British. In fact, every part of his ride was to avoid the British.

We'll just assume you skipped over the posts where it was shown that Paul Rever did indeed 'warn the British' about taking our arms, stored in Concord. I know you'd never look at factual evidence and simply, ignore it.

Sure, it was not the original intent of the ride, or even part of the mission officially. But it did happen, and apparently Palin knew it. SHe flubbed the telling seriously badly of course, but she had part of the basic idea of that correct.

Hatred blinds people I suppose.


BTW... did Palin ever actually 'say' 2nd amendment at the time? Or is that waht people read into her comments about 'taking our arms'?
 
Last edited:
Here is where the bell ringing comes into play. I know you've been hung up on that for several days now.
But that's not what she said. You have to twist her words to mean something other than what she actually said in order to make her correct. You're no different than the cultists who editted the Conservapedia and Wikipedia sites in their vein attempt to alter history to make her correct when she's not.

Read it again ... pay close attention to the highlighted word ...
"He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms BY ringing those bells"
She idiotically stated that Paul Revere warned the British that they were not going to be taking away our arms BY ringing those bells.

How did ringing bells warn the British they were not going to take our arms? And are you aware that the bell ringing was to alarm the Colonists, not warn the British?
 
I don't think at any point in the ride, it was Revere's mission to alert the British.

She never said it was. It's your complete lack of historical knowledge of the period that makes you believe that she was saying that.


He got captured, he lied to them so they wouldn't go to Lexington or Concord I believe. He wasn't intending to say anything about the arms or the Revolutionary Army taking them out.

Well, actually, he didn't lie. Why did he tell them what he knew? I don't know. Maybe he was hoping to make them think they were operating against superior forces and perhaps buy some time for the militia. it appears that that may be the case and that it may have worked, since the British didn't assail the militia until the next morning.

BTW, there was no, "Revolutionary Army". The first official armed force of the United States was The Marine Corps and it wasn't establish until 10 November of 1775. Good thing Palin didn't say something like that, you'd be screaming about how stupid she is.


It wasn't so much the 2nd amendment sort of argument that her initial statement makes it seem. As I said, what she said was close enough to a truth that others can interpret her as recounting history. But it's not 100%, and it was spoken fairly poorly.

Did she say anything about the 2nd Amendment? Or, is that just another out of context thing by the Palin-haters?

In the end, with all the conservatives out there; there has to be one which holds to values as people claim Palin does and can speak well enough to clearly convey meaning. You should find that person.

I think the bigger problem, is that there are far too many people in this country who are historically handcapped. Alotta the folks on this thread, sadly, fall into that catagory.
 
But that's not what she said. You have to twist her words to mean something other than what she actually said in order to make her correct. You're no different than the cultists who editted the Conservapedia and Wikipedia sites in their vein attempt to alter history to make her correct when she's not.

Read it again ... pay close attention to the highlighted word ...
"He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms BY ringing those bells"
She idiotically stated that Paul Revere warned the British that they were not going to be taking away our arms BY ringing those bells.

How did ringing bells warn the British they were not going to take our arms? And are you aware that the bell ringing was to alarm the Colonists, not warn the British?

You're spinnin' your wheels my friend.
 
We'll just assume you skipped over the posts where it was shown that Paul Rever did indeed 'warn the British' about taking our arms, stored in Concord. I know you'd never look at factual evidence and simply, ignore it.

Sure, it was not the original intent of the ride, or even part of the mission officially. But it did happen, and apparently Palin knew it. SHe flubbed the telling seriously badly of course, but she had part of the basic idea of that correct.

Hatred blinds people I suppose.


BTW... did Palin ever actually 'say' 2nd amendment at the time? Or is that waht people read into her comments about 'taking our arms'?

He warned after capture, but it was not his purpose or intent. Nor is it how she said it in context. Her claim was inaccurate as she presented, . . . in context.
 
I don't think at any point in the ride, it was Revere's mission to alert the British. He got captured, he lied to them so they wouldn't go to Lexington or Concord I believe. He wasn't intending to say anything about the arms or the Revolutionary Army taking them out, not as the initial purpose of the ride. These are things done after capture. It wasn't so much the 2nd amendment sort of argument that her initial statement makes it seem. As I said, what she said was close enough to a truth that others can interpret her as recounting history. But it's not 100%, and it was spoken fairly poorly.

In the end, with all the conservatives out there; there has to be one which holds to values as people claim Palin does and can speak well enough to clearly convey meaning. You should find that person.

Nicely said and very good advice.
 
I guess you don't understand what, "cached", means in the context of Revere's words?

I'll explain for you: when he mentions, "cache", he's talking about weapons. When he says that, "five hundred Americans would be there in short time", he meant that 500 Colonist militiamen would show up at that spot to collect those arms and be ready for action.
Holy ****!!

He didn't mention a "cache" either.

Why are you making **** up if Palin was right?

And the spot the were at was not in Concord where the Colonists' weapons were. He wasn't talking about weapons, nor would he. He would have to be a traitor to inform the British where there weapons were stored. Why are you Conservatives so willing to paint a true patriot like Paul Revere as a traitor just so you can make Palin appear slightly less of an idiot like she did when she mangled his heroic legend?
 
Whovian said:
We'll just assume you skipped over the posts where it was shown that Paul Rever did indeed 'warn the British' about taking our arms, stored in Concord. I know you'd never look at factual evidence and simply, ignore it.

Sure, it was not the original intent of the ride, or even part of the mission officially. But it did happen, and apparently Palin knew it. SHe flubbed the telling seriously badly of course, but she had part of the basic idea of that correct.

Hatred blinds people I suppose.


BTW... did Palin ever actually 'say' 2nd amendment at the time? Or is that waht people read into her comments about 'taking our arms'?

He warned after capture, but it was not his purpose or intent. Nor is it how she said it in context. Her claim was inaccurate as she presented, . . . in context.

You do realized we just agreed on all that... right?
 
She never said it was. It's your complete lack of historical knowledge of the period that makes you believe that she was saying that.

Well if Ad hoc is all you got, then by all means do it.

Well, actually, he didn't lie. Why did he tell them what he knew? I don't know. Maybe he was hoping to make them think they were operating against superior forces and perhaps buy some time for the militia. it appears that that may be the case and that it may have worked, since the British didn't assail the militia until the next morning.

BTW, there was no, "Revolutionary Army". The first official armed force of the United States was The Marine Corps and it wasn't establish until 10 November of 1775. Good thing Palin didn't say something like that, you'd be screaming about how stupid she is.

I don't need this to know how stupid Palin is. Regardless, what he said was never a point of the mission. The initial comments made it seem as if it was and made it seem as if this were more an analogy to our current 2nd amanedment debates.

Did she say anything about the 2nd Amendment? Or, is that just another out of context thing by the Palin-haters?

It's called context, for those who don't wish to be so partisan to be blind about it.

I think the bigger problem, is that there are far too many people in this country who are historically handcapped. Alotta the folks on this thread, sadly, fall into that catagory.

I think the biggest problem is that there are a lot of blind partisan folk out there unwilling to accept criticism of the people they endorse and thus make long, drawn out defenses which don't address the original context as to distract from the underlying issue of something being said which isn't fully true. But whatever, take your pick.
 
Holy ****!!

He didn't mention a "cache" either.

Why are you making **** up if Palin was right?

And the spot the were at was not in Concord where the Colonists' weapons were. He wasn't talking about weapons, nor would he. He would have to be a traitor to inform the British where there weapons were stored. Why are you Conservatives so willing to paint a true patriot like Paul Revere as a traitor just so you can make Palin appear slightly less of an idiot like she did when she mangled his heroic legend?

So, those, "five hundred Americans", were unarmed? And, the British didn't come to disarm the militia?

You need to seriously get a grip.
 
Sure, it was not the original intent of the ride
Accordng to her, it was...

"Part of his ride was to warn the British" ~ Sarah Palin

No, part of his ride was not to warn the British. She got that wrong too and her acolytes simply can't accept that.
 
Holy ****!!

He didn't mention a "cache" either.

Why are you making **** up if Palin was right?

And the spot the were at was not in Concord where the Colonists' weapons were. He wasn't talking about weapons, nor would he. He would have to be a traitor to inform the British where there weapons were stored. Why are you Conservatives so willing to paint a true patriot like Paul Revere as a traitor just so you can make Palin appear slightly less of an idiot like she did when she mangled his heroic legend?

It was already known by the British that the weapons were cached in Concord...


Fighting at Lexington and Conco
In April 1775, British General Thomas Gage was the new Governor of Massachusetts. He had heard that the Patriots had secretly stored weapons in the town of Concord. He had also heard that John Hancock and Samuel Adams, two leaders of the Sons of Liberty, were in Lexington. General Gage sent 700 British soldiers to find the weapons and arrest the two Patriot leaders.

The British soldiers then marched on to Concord. The British had expected to find the Patriot weapons in Concord, but the Patriots had moved them
 
Well if Ad hoc is all you got, then by all means do it.



I don't need this to know how stupid Palin is. Regardless, what he said was never a point of the mission. The initial comments made it seem as if it was and made it seem as if this were more an analogy to our current 2nd amanedment debates.



It's called context, for those who don't wish to be so partisan to be blind about it.



I think the biggest problem is that there are a lot of blind partisan folk out there unwilling to accept criticism of the people they endorse and thus make long, drawn out defenses which don't address the original context as to distract from the underlying issue of something being said which isn't fully true. But whatever, take your pick.

So, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you're so hung up on hating Sarah, that you're going to argue with a fence post? Got it!
 
Accordng to her, it was...

"Part of his ride was to warn the British" ~ Sarah Palin

No, part of his ride was not to warn the British. She got that wrong too and her acolytes simply can't accept that.

what part of 'she badly flubbed the telling...' do you have the complete inability to comprehend? You are willfuly being thick here
 
Accordng to her, it was...

"Part of his ride was to warn the British" ~ Sarah Palin

No, part of his ride was not to warn the British. She got that wrong too and her acolytes simply can't accept that.

Damn, her actual words just keep changin' and changin'.

Where did she say, "it was part of his ride"? :lamo
 
So, those, "five hundred Americans", were unarmed? And, the British didn't come to disarm the militia?

You need to seriously get a grip.
Doesn't matter, he never said it. You even quoted him. You even put words in his mouth he didn't say. How the hell could he have warned them they would not take the Colonists' arms when he never said that?? Now you're making **** up to make Palin right.

And what word did you think he said when you thought he said, "cache?"
 
So, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you're so hung up on hating Sarah, that you're going to argue with a fence post? Got it!

So in the face of overwhelming evidence, you're so hung up on defending Sarah, that you're going to argue with a fence post? Got it.
 
Damn, her actual words just keep changin' and changin'.

Where did she say, "it was part of his ride"? :lamo
WOW!!!

You really have no f'n clue what she said, do??

You really have no business defending her when you don't even know what she said.o

YouTube - ‪Palin Doubles Down On Paul Revere History Lesson: 'I Didn't Mess Up'‬‏

"Part of his ride was to warn the British that we we're already there, that hey, you’re not going to succeed." ~ Sarah Palin.

No part of his ride was to warn the British about anything. His ride was to avoid the British. Only when he got caught did he inform them that 500 Americans were on their way.

You just can't bring yourself to admitted she was wrong, can you? :lamo
 
Damn, her actual words just keep changin' and changin'.

Where did she say, "it was part of his ride"? :lamo

Palin, a paid Fox News contributor, told "Fox News Sunday" that she was correct. She says there were British soldiers in the area for years before Revere's legendary ride, and that he was warning them, as well as his fellow colonists.

"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.'"

She blamed her previous answer on the media, saying it was a "gotcha question."


Sarah Palin On Paul Revere Ride: I Didn't Get History Wrong (VIDEO)
 
I can't believe people are still arguing this. :doh

I don't know whether to admire or pity apdst for sticking to his version of what happened even in the face of the evidence presented to him repeatedly. It must be a pride thing.

Regardless, this whole thing is a non-issue. She flubbed the story of Paul Revere. Lets all move on. Sarah Palin is a human being and human beings **** up sometimes. Just because she ****ed up in this particular instance doesn't mean that she's not smart or that the people who point it out somehow hate her.

I find it ironic that some of the people here get just as outraged when Obama flubs up and they turn it into a huge issue. The problem here is that it could have ended if Sarah Palin had just admitted on Fox News that she ****ed up when she was asked about it. However, she chose to claim that she didn't make any mistake at all, and now it keeps going. It would be like Obama claiming that he didn't make a mistake with the 2008 date thing and that this isn't actually 2011.

Please, for the love of god can we move on?
 
Palin, a paid Fox News contributor, told "Fox News Sunday" that she was correct. She says there were British soldiers in the area for years before Revere's legendary ride, and that he was warning them, as well as his fellow colonists.

"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.'"

She blamed her previous answer on the media, saying it was a "gotcha question."


Sarah Palin On Paul Revere Ride: I Didn't Get History Wrong (VIDEO)

Yeah, I thought that was hilarious. How exactly was that a "gotcha question"?
 
Back
Top Bottom