Palin on Paul Revere

Curious_cock

Admired Member
Verified
Gold
Cammer
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Posts
1,664
Media
3
Likes
977
Points
358
Location
New York, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, consider this: most liberals consider Palin to be automatically stupid, because she is a conservative.. so naturally, the media (which has a liberal bias.. ), pounced on her "error".. but as it turns out.. she was correct in her statement that Paul Revere did warn the British, and I am not getting this information from a wikipedia page.. No, my dear friends, this vindication of Sarah Palin's statement on Revere (vindication means.. "she was RIGHT").. comes from, of all places, the Boston Herald! (Not exactly a bastion of conservative reporters): Here is the link:

Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account - BostonHerald.com

Before reacting to what I just posted, with a knee-jerk reaction, please take the time to read the article! Turns out she was right "You betcha"..
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, consider this: most liberals consider Palin to be automatically stupid, because she is a conservative.. so naturally, the media (which has a liberal bias.. ), pounced on her "error".. but as it turns out.. she was correct in her statement that Paul Revere did warn the British, and I am not getting this information from a wikipedia page.. No, my dear friends, this vindication of Sarah Palin's statement on Revere (vindication means.. "she was RIGHT").. comes from, of all places, the Boston Herald! (Not exactly a bastion of conservative reporters): Here is the link:

Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account - BostonHerald.com

Before reacting to what I just posted, with a knee-jerk reaction, please take the time to read the article! Turns out she was right "You betcha"..

Paul Revere fired no shots. He rang no bells.

Sarah said this: "[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’s 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"

Now, it's true, with the lack of syntax and general rambling nature of this "sentence" that it's hard to say WHO she said was ringing bells and firing shots. But it sounds a lot like she was saying PAUL REVERE did that. He didn't. He also didn't ride through town to warn the British - which is another thing it sounds like she is saying. Sure, he was captured by Brits and warned them that Americans were on the way, but he didn't GO ON HIS RIDE TO DO THAT.

Sarah got lucky. It turns out that he was captured by some Brits and he warned them of the militia that was following him. However, that's not what she was saying, unless you're quite liberal with your use of inference.

Now, her FOLLOW UP statement, which came days later, says this: "Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms." It's less lacking in general structure, and so a bit easier to parse. THIS statement is essentially correct (although she still seems to be placing intent where it doesn't belong - PAUL REVERE WAS TRYING TO AVOID THE BRITS, BUT WAS ACCIDENTALLY CAUGHT!!!), but it is not what she said in her original statement. The historians, if you read your article, are agreeing with this, much later statement, and then saying they think she arrived at this conclusion by accident.

So, yup, i read your article. And nope, it doesn't corroborate Sarah's initial claim.

Vindication indeed.

I do, however, think that Sarah needs more worship, as her statements are so carefully open to interpretation that they read much like a parable, or even a biblical verse.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
172
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, consider this: most liberals consider Palin to be automatically stupid, because she is a conservative.. so naturally, the media (which has a liberal bias.. ), pounced on her "error".. but as it turns out.. she was correct in her statement that Paul Revere did warn the British, and I am not getting this information from a wikipedia page.. No, my dear friends, this vindication of Sarah Palin's statement on Revere (vindication means.. "she was RIGHT").. comes from, of all places, the Boston Herald! (Not exactly a bastion of conservative reporters): Here is the link:

Jesus tap dancing Christ- I'm not letting you get away with this.

1) no, most liberals do NOT consider conservatives automatically stupid.
2) there is NO liberal media bias- almost all of the media is corporately owned- just because CNN does not agree with Fox doesn't make it liberal
3) The Boston Herald IS conservative- you're thinking of the Globe
 

tallblondviking

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Posts
457
Media
6
Likes
1,351
Points
273
Location
new jersey - yuck!
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
OMG - the Gospel according to Sarah. What a truly FRIGHTENING concept!

I'd like to hear her speech at the next Mensa meeting...

Why isn't she touring in a short bus instead of the full sized one? Anyone?
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, consider this: most liberals consider Palin to be automatically stupid, because she is a conservative.. so naturally, the media (which has a liberal bias.. ), pounced on her "error".. but as it turns out.. she was correct in her statement that Paul Revere did warn the British, and I am not getting this information from a wikipedia page.. No, my dear friends, this vindication of Sarah Palin's statement on Revere (vindication means.. "she was RIGHT").. comes from, of all places, the Boston Herald! (Not exactly a bastion of conservative reporters): Here is the link:

Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account - BostonHerald.com

Before reacting to what I just posted, with a knee-jerk reaction, please take the time to read the article! Turns out she was right "You betcha"..

No, she's not. :rolleyes:
Paul Revere's role in the Revolutionary War is something that is taught in elementary school. He helped create the intelligence and alarm system to keep an eye out for the British military. His midnight ride was to warn the revolutionists about how the British were coming to invade preceding the Battles of Lexington and Concord. One lantern was to be placed in the Old North Church if the British came by land, and two if by sea. It was only when he was briefly detained when he stated that the British may be in danger due to hostile militia gathering in Lexington. This is how the story was taught in History classes in schools around the world for more than a century now and historians around the world agree on this. So there is no further debate or speculation on these facts whatsoever.

Contextually, Palin's comments imply that Paul Revere rode on a horse to warn the British that their enemy was "armed and dangerous" and anyone could tell you that is wrong. Being that Revere was against the British, he would have never conveyed this message unless he was in a situation where his life may have been in danger. That is, unless, you or Palin want to imply that Paul Revere was a "double agent" (and we all know that ain't true either). Hence the backlash she is receiving now for her ignorant comments. Either she doesn't know the full story, or she does and is intentionally distorting it and telling half truths to convey a historically flawed message to her fan base since that's what they'd rather hear. Take your pick. But she's not "right". However, even if you still want to hide behind that article you sourced, do keep in mind that the Boston Herald is a known conservative leaning newspaper and the article you sourced is an "opinion piece". That should already warn you that the information given lacks any objectiveness... that is, if we need to go by actual facts and not blindly defend Sarah Palin just because you like her (or thinks she's a MILF).

And BTW, Andrew Sullivan and Colin Powell are two examples of conservatives that most liberals wouldn't consider to be stupid. This notion that Palin is "automatically perceived" as being stupid by liberals is bullshit. If Joe Biden said the same thing as Palin, we'd all be on his back as well. And yes, he does have a tendency to say stupid shit... but even Biden isn't this clueless!
 
Last edited:

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Palin is brainless for sure, but not that "dumb" or at least smart enough to surround herself with smart people, I think. If only they can get her to keep her mouth closed, which in itself presents a quandary because it's hard to campaign without speaking.

But campaigning is exactly what she is doing. The game here is to create buzz, fanfare, and the media attention by NOT declaring yourself a candidate. Not "officially running" also helps to deflect the level of scrutiny she'd undergo if she did (officially declare herself a candidate).

There's currently what, some EIGHT declared candidates in the GOP now? Give or take a few who're no longer running and who haven't yet declared. NONE of whom the GOP electorate is particularly thrilled about as of yet. Recent polls show 35 -40% of their voters unenthused over anyone of those. So why should Palin join in the fray?

Certainly those eight - twelve "front runners" over the next several appearances and debates will be trying to dice up each other for the GOP nod. Sarah, possibly the least informed of the bunch, yet (not so coincidentally) the most popular (the GOP having an apparent allergy to anyone "informed"), has nothing to gain by getting into that tangle.

She can sit out the debates having to explain or divulge nothing of any substance at all, entering the contest only after the smoke clears and the field narrows. And if all else fails she can always come back with "what campaign? This was a promotional tour." and pocket all the proceeds.

Palin is crazy like that... crazy like a fox.
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
As I've said earlier, I seriously doubt that she'll enter the race. However, I think I have figured out what she's looking for: she wants to play 'kingmaker' and have whoever does succeed in getting the nomination be beholden to her. All along, it's been about the attention she gets... and what more powerful role than that of 'kingmaker' -- aligning the fringe of the party with the mainstream candidate when the time is right and the appropriate genuflection has taken place.

She gets to be the center of attention WITHOUT getting shot down (well, at least not on a daily basis) for her gaffes, lack of awareness of world affairs, and fumbling of the issues. As a bonus, she gets to keep the big money that media outlets like FoxNews seem willing to thrust in front of her and she maintains her soapbox. I'm sure it seems like the American Dream to her -- however perverted that is.