[quote]PB Andy wrote:
No thoughts, no opinions… Just waiting for this thread to erupt so I can enjoy the reading. 
[/quote]
Paul Revere is an American mythology fable.
Every single one of you fail.
One if by land, and two if by sea ? and then what? According to historians interviewed by the Boston Herald, Paul Revere then warned the British not to challenge a roused and armed populace. That came as news to many observers who had rushed to criticize Sarah Palin for her response to a gotcha question at the Old North Church:
Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere ?warned the British? during his famed 1775 ride ? remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed ? is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.
Palin prompted howls of partisan derision when she said on Boston?s Freedom Trail that 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.?
The first to dispute Palin?s critics was ? Paul Revere himself. In his own account of the ride, written twenty-three years later, Revere recounts how the British captured him, and how he attempted to dissuade the British from advancing. Revere warned that he had roused the local militias and that there would soon be 500 or more armed citizens coming together to repel the British.
A Boston University history professor told the Herald that Revere did indeed warn the British as well as the Americans earlier in his ride:
Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, ?Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ?Look, there is a mobilization going on that you?ll be confronting,? and the British are aware as they?re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing ? she was right about that ? and warning shots being fired. That?s accurate.?
Of course, Revere wasn?t planning on getting captured. He and others riding to the alarm (William Dawes and Samuel Prescott) wanted to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams of British action first, and rouse the militia second. Dawes and Prescott managed to elude the British and complete the mission, but Revere was captured.
Furthermore, his warnings sufficiently rattled the British that they let him go ? but without his horse. He returned on foot to Lexington, where he managed to hide a trunk with Hancock?s letters to keep it from being captured, but missed the battle.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Paul Revere is an American mythology fable.
Every single one of you fail.[/quote]
Right on your mark with some anti-establishment conspiracy fairy-tale.
[quote]WWCD-LINY wrote:
One if by land, and two if by sea ? and then what? According to historians interviewed by the Boston Herald, Paul Revere then warned the British not to challenge a roused and armed populace. That came as news to many observers who had rushed to criticize Sarah Palin for her response to a gotcha question at the Old North Church:
Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere ?warned the British? during his famed 1775 ride ? remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed ? is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.
Palin prompted howls of partisan derision when she said on Boston?s Freedom Trail that 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.?
The first to dispute Palin?s critics was ? Paul Revere himself. In his own account of the ride, written twenty-three years later, Revere recounts how the British captured him, and how he attempted to dissuade the British from advancing. Revere warned that he had roused the local militias and that there would soon be 500 or more armed citizens coming together to repel the British.
A Boston University history professor told the Herald that Revere did indeed warn the British as well as the Americans earlier in his ride:
Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, ?Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ?Look, there is a mobilization going on that you?ll be confronting,? and the British are aware as they?re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing ? she was right about that ? and warning shots being fired. That?s accurate.?
Of course, Revere wasn?t planning on getting captured. He and others riding to the alarm (William Dawes and Samuel Prescott) wanted to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams of British action first, and rouse the militia second. Dawes and Prescott managed to elude the British and complete the mission, but Revere was captured.
Furthermore, his warnings sufficiently rattled the British that they let him go ? but without his horse. He returned on foot to Lexington, where he managed to hide a trunk with Hancock?s letters to keep it from being captured, but missed the battle.
[/quote]
Please don’t cloud the argument with facts. The far left says that she’s wrong. We need to let it go at that.
C’mon guys…
VERY few people, (including most of you), have heard OR read of this account of Paul Revere’s Ride.
And on top of that; you’re taking the word of a Professor from one of those “cesspools” of liberal thought, an American University???
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
C’mon guys…
VERY few people, (including most of you), have heard OR read of this account of Paul Revere’s Ride.
And on top of that; you’re taking the word of a Professor from one of those “cesspools” of liberal thought, an American University???
Mufasa[/quote]
Exactly.
Concession: through the babble and drivel, Palin’s account contains more historical fact than anyone had originally thought. I certainly had never heard the word “bell” in reference to Revere’s fabled midnight ride.
Does this change the fact that it was a stupid answer? Less stupid, sure. But still a dumb fucking answer. “Paul Revere warned the Colonials that the British were coming.” That’s the right answer. That’s why he is famous. That’s where he helped that night. Do you think his capture and the exchange of a few words with British officers after the fact is a pertinent or historically significant detail related to Paul Revere? Is it the first thing that should come to mind when asked who Revere was and what Revere did? No. My guess is that she was told that little factoid just before being asked the question, and did her best to regurgitate it.
An analogy:
Question: Who was Thomas Jefferson?
Answer: Well, he was John Adams’ Vice President.
True, but still a stupid fuckin answer.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
C’mon guys…
VERY few people, (including most of you), have heard OR read of this account of Paul Revere’s Ride.
And on top of that; you’re taking the word of a Professor from one of those “cesspools” of liberal thought, an American University???
Mufasa[/quote]
Yeah well, she probably could not find her ass with a map and a handlight.
That the gotcha crowd is full of shit too is just the cherry on top.
Because, after all, they pretend to be all edumucated and shit.
By the way…
I’ve said more than once that I think Palin is brilliant.
She has gone from an underemployed mayor of a small town in Alsaka with an underemployed spouse…to a millionaire, with the adoration of millions, in the space of less than three years.
I doubt that I’ll ever reach her level of success.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
C’mon guys…
VERY few people, (including most of you), have heard OR read of this account of Paul Revere’s Ride.
And on top of that; you’re taking the word of a Professor from one of those “cesspools” of liberal thought, an American University???
Mufasa[/quote]
Yeah guys stop defending Palin. Never mind that she could end up being correct and in fact knows more about Revere’s ride than you do. She said “British” and that sounded stupid so she must be stupid.
Yeah…I’m with you let’s keep beating her until she’s sorry she ever said yes to McCain.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
C’mon guys…
VERY few people, (including most of you), have heard OR read of this account of Paul Revere’s Ride.
And on top of that; you’re taking the word of a Professor from one of those “cesspools” of liberal thought, an American University???
Mufasa[/quote]
Exactly.
Concession: through the babble and drivel, Palin’s account contains more historical fact than anyone had originally thought. I certainly had never heard the word “bell” in reference to Revere’s fabled midnight ride.
Does this change the fact that it was a stupid answer? Less stupid, sure. But still a dumb fucking answer. “Paul Revere warned the Colonials that the British were coming.” That’s the right answer. That’s why he is famous. That’s where he helped that night. Do you think his capture and the exchange of a few words with British officers after the fact is a pertinent or historically significant detail related to Paul Revere? Is it the first thing that should come to mind when asked who Revere was and what Revere did? No. My guess is that she was told that little factoid just before being asked the question, and did her best to regurgitate it.
An analogy:
Question: Who was Thomas Jefferson?
Answer: Well, he was John Adams’ Vice President.
True, but still a stupid fuckin answer.[/quote]
Yeah, too much information, and besides she didn’t answer the question the way you wanted so she’s um stupid. You guys got it nailed man. Sweeeeeeeeet. Do more.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
C’mon guys…
VERY few people, (including most of you), have heard OR read of this account of Paul Revere’s Ride.
And on top of that; you’re taking the word of a Professor from one of those “cesspools” of liberal thought, an American University???
Mufasa[/quote]
Exactly.
Concession: through the babble and drivel, Palin’s account contains more historical fact than anyone had originally thought. I certainly had never heard the word “bell” in reference to Revere’s fabled midnight ride.
Does this change the fact that it was a stupid answer? Less stupid, sure. But still a dumb fucking answer. “Paul Revere warned the Colonials that the British were coming.” That’s the right answer. That’s why he is famous. That’s where he helped that night. Do you think his capture and the exchange of a few words with British officers after the fact is a pertinent or historically significant detail related to Paul Revere? Is it the first thing that should come to mind when asked who Revere was and what Revere did? No. My guess is that she was told that little factoid just before being asked the question, and did her best to regurgitate it.
An analogy:
Question: Who was Thomas Jefferson?
Answer: Well, he was John Adams’ Vice President.
True, but still a stupid fuckin answer.[/quote]
Yeah, too much information, and besides she didn’t answer the question the way you wanted so she’s um stupid. You guys got it nailed man. Sweeeeeeeeet. Do more.[/quote]
Oh please, as if, deep down, you actually believed she knew.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
C’mon guys…
VERY few people, (including most of you), have heard OR read of this account of Paul Revere’s Ride.
And on top of that; you’re taking the word of a Professor from one of those “cesspools” of liberal thought, an American University???
Mufasa[/quote]
Exactly.
Concession: through the babble and drivel, Palin’s account contains more historical fact than anyone had originally thought. I certainly had never heard the word “bell” in reference to Revere’s fabled midnight ride.
Does this change the fact that it was a stupid answer? Less stupid, sure. But still a dumb fucking answer. “Paul Revere warned the Colonials that the British were coming.” That’s the right answer. That’s why he is famous. That’s where he helped that night. Do you think his capture and the exchange of a few words with British officers after the fact is a pertinent or historically significant detail related to Paul Revere? Is it the first thing that should come to mind when asked who Revere was and what Revere did? No. My guess is that she was told that little factoid just before being asked the question, and did her best to regurgitate it.
An analogy:
Question: Who was Thomas Jefferson?
Answer: Well, he was John Adams’ Vice President.
True, but still a stupid fuckin answer.[/quote]
-“Did you hear Sarah Palin’s stupid answer about Paul Revere? She’s stupid”
-“Uhm, her answer was actually correct”
-“Ok, maybe, but she’s still stupid”
Brilliant argument.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
C’mon guys…
VERY few people, (including most of you), have heard OR read of this account of Paul Revere’s Ride.
And on top of that; you’re taking the word of a Professor from one of those “cesspools” of liberal thought, an American University???
Mufasa[/quote]
Exactly.
Concession: through the babble and drivel, Palin’s account contains more historical fact than anyone had originally thought. I certainly had never heard the word “bell” in reference to Revere’s fabled midnight ride.
Does this change the fact that it was a stupid answer? Less stupid, sure. But still a dumb fucking answer. “Paul Revere warned the Colonials that the British were coming.” That’s the right answer. That’s why he is famous. That’s where he helped that night. Do you think his capture and the exchange of a few words with British officers after the fact is a pertinent or historically significant detail related to Paul Revere? Is it the first thing that should come to mind when asked who Revere was and what Revere did? No. My guess is that she was told that little factoid just before being asked the question, and did her best to regurgitate it.
An analogy:
Question: Who was Thomas Jefferson?
Answer: Well, he was John Adams’ Vice President.
True, but still a stupid fuckin answer.[/quote]
-“Did you hear Sarah Palin’s stupid answer about Paul Revere? She’s stupid”
-“Uhm, her answer was actually correct”
-“Ok, maybe, but she’s still stupid”
Brilliant argument.
[/quote]
Oh.
Please.
As.
If.
You.
Thought.
She.
Knew.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
C’mon guys…
VERY few people, (including most of you), have heard OR read of this account of Paul Revere’s Ride.
And on top of that; you’re taking the word of a Professor from one of those “cesspools” of liberal thought, an American University???
Mufasa[/quote]
Exactly.
Concession: through the babble and drivel, Palin’s account contains more historical fact than anyone had originally thought. I certainly had never heard the word “bell” in reference to Revere’s fabled midnight ride.
Does this change the fact that it was a stupid answer? Less stupid, sure. But still a dumb fucking answer. “Paul Revere warned the Colonials that the British were coming.” That’s the right answer. That’s why he is famous. That’s where he helped that night. Do you think his capture and the exchange of a few words with British officers after the fact is a pertinent or historically significant detail related to Paul Revere? Is it the first thing that should come to mind when asked who Revere was and what Revere did? No. My guess is that she was told that little factoid just before being asked the question, and did her best to regurgitate it.
An analogy:
Question: Who was Thomas Jefferson?
Answer: Well, he was John Adams’ Vice President.
True, but still a stupid fuckin answer.[/quote]
-“Did you hear Sarah Palin’s stupid answer about Paul Revere? She’s stupid”
-“Uhm, her answer was actually correct”
-“Ok, maybe, but she’s still stupid”
Brilliant argument.
[/quote]
Oh.
Please.
As.
If.
You.
Thought.
She.
Knew.
[/quote]
Oh, I see, we are supposed to ignore factual evidence and base our discussions on what we thought… That certainly skews the way we percieve the world.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
C’mon guys…
VERY few people, (including most of you), have heard OR read of this account of Paul Revere’s Ride.
And on top of that; you’re taking the word of a Professor from one of those “cesspools” of liberal thought, an American University???
Mufasa[/quote]
Exactly.
Concession: through the babble and drivel, Palin’s account contains more historical fact than anyone had originally thought. I certainly had never heard the word “bell” in reference to Revere’s fabled midnight ride.
Does this change the fact that it was a stupid answer? Less stupid, sure. But still a dumb fucking answer. “Paul Revere warned the Colonials that the British were coming.” That’s the right answer. That’s why he is famous. That’s where he helped that night. Do you think his capture and the exchange of a few words with British officers after the fact is a pertinent or historically significant detail related to Paul Revere? Is it the first thing that should come to mind when asked who Revere was and what Revere did? No. My guess is that she was told that little factoid just before being asked the question, and did her best to regurgitate it.
An analogy:
Question: Who was Thomas Jefferson?
Answer: Well, he was John Adams’ Vice President.
True, but still a stupid fuckin answer.[/quote]
-“Did you hear Sarah Palin’s stupid answer about Paul Revere? She’s stupid”
-“Uhm, her answer was actually correct”
-“Ok, maybe, but she’s still stupid”
Brilliant argument.
[/quote]
Oh.
Please.
As.
If.
You.
Thought.
She.
Knew.
[/quote]
Oh, I see, we are supposed to ignore factual evidence and base our discussions on what we thought… That certainly skews the way we percieve the world.[/quote]
Indeed, it does.
And you were among those who thought she was a lightweight and for good reasons.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Oh, I see, we are supposed to ignore factual evidence and base our discussions on what we thought… That certainly skews the way we percieve the world.[/quote]
Indeed, it does.
And you were among those who thought she was a lightweight and for good reasons.
[/quote]
I did? Thanks for inserting my opinion for me.
My best guess is that she had literally just listened to a guided talk or lecture or something while at Revere’s house, and regurgitated that particular (far less significant) part of the whole story. Correct, yes. But not a good answer.
And, by the way: I think she’s stupid for the reasons I posted earlier (Africa, inability to name a single thing she reads, inability to name a supreme court case other than R v W), not for this.
This might be a good time to throw in that there is a vital difference between “stupid” and “ignorant”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This might be a good time to throw in that there is a vital difference between “stupid” and “ignorant”. [/quote]
Good point. And when I call someone I don’t at all know “stupid,” I usually mean ignorant. Stupidity is a serious charge to bring against someone, and it takes a good amount of getting to know them first.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way…
I’ve said more than once that I think Palin is brilliant.
She has gone from an underemployed mayor of a small town in Alsaka with an underemployed spouse…to a millionaire, with the adoration of millions, in the space of less than three years.
I doubt that I’ll ever reach her level of success.
Mufasa[/quote]
I think this is the point that most “palin haters” miss. She may be uneducated or undereducated by the standards many have for higher office, but she is FAR from stupid.