Step away from the ledge Sarah Palin is still dumb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by genpop

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43285196...ics/?gt1=43001

Yeah you're right. The media should probably just ignore this too.:rolleyes:

---

They really should. It is of no relevance at all in today's world. Fun fact and American history, but ancient history. It is more important to HAVE a Paul Revere in today's world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_Won

They really should. It is of no relevance at all in today's world. Fun fact and American history, but ancient history. It is more important to HAVE a Paul Revere in today's world.

---

Wouldn't a modern day Paul Revere know what the Paul Revere of the past did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by genpop

Wouldn't a modern day Paul Revere know what the Paul Revere of the past did?

---

Not necessarily. It's kind of instinct thing. See a danger and warn people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by genpop

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43285196...ics/?gt1=43001

Yeah you're right. The media should probably just ignore this too.:rolleyes:

---

Here, let me pull a bit of the spin we have come to expect from the dems (because you are an idiot enough to accept it on their behalf....maybe you can accept this as well).

The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, and Paul Revere's ride happened in 1775, meaning that for all intents and purposes Paul, and those he was warning, were pretty much subjects of the crown and British. This means she was correct in saying he was warning the British.

Now, you explain the stupidity uttered by your heroes, like the shivers running down the leg when in the presence of his holiness obama or the 57 states or your dem buddies sending pics of themselves in their panties to college girls.

Nah, that doesn't work Dawgy. She basically said Revere was warning the British that we (the colonists, or whatever we were called back then) were not going to be giving up our arms. The way I understand it, he was warning us (the colonists) that the British were coming to steal our arms.

"He who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be taking away our arms by ringing those bells making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

I would have thought she meant "the colonists" instead of "the British" but she stuck with her original statement on Fox this morning. Only adding that he was warning the colonists that the British were coming, but also warning the British not to do it or else.

Paul Revere was one of three riders; Samuel Prescott and William Dawes also took off to warn of the British expedition. All three were captured by the British at a checkpoint, but Prescott escaped and rode on to Concord to alert the American militia. Revere was set free, horseless, near Lexington and he did complete his mission of warning Adams and Hancock. Dawes also escaped, but fell from his horse while trying to ride thru a thick forest, was injured, and played no further role in the famous "ride."

There are always lots of little "truths" and details that elude popular history. And, I am no expert on this particular topic. However, it appears, based on some quick research, there is no evidence to support Palin's version. Revere and Dawes were sent to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock the British were coming to arrest them, and then they were to ride on to alert the Minutemen at Concord. Prescott joined Revere and Dawes along the journey, and it was he, that actually reached Concord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow

Here, let me pull a bit of the spin we have come to expect from the dems (because you are an idiot enough to accept it on their behalf....maybe you can accept this as well).

The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, and Paul Revere's ride happened in 1775, meaning that for all intents and purposes Paul, and those he was warning, were pretty much subjects of the crown and British. This means she was correct in saying he was warning the British.

Now, you explain the stupidity uttered by your heroes, like the shivers running down the leg when in the presence of his holiness obama or the 57 states or your dem buddies sending pics of themselves in their panties to college girls.

---

:laugh:Revere was warning the British of the British.....OOOOKKKKKK. Technically she may be correct but I highly doubt that by 1775 colonists were considering themselves as British.

Let's just face it, the darlings of the republicans Palin and Bachmann don't know jack about American history. And this is from the party that is supposed to have some kind of monopoly on patriotism.:rolleyes4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by genpop

:laugh:Revere was warning the British of the British.....OOOOKKKKKK. Technically she may be correct but I highly doubt that by 1775 colonists were considering themselves as British.

Let's just face it, the darlings of the republicans Palin and Bachmann don't know jack about American history. And this is from the party that is supposed to have some kind of monopoly on patriotism.:rolleyes4:

---

This party doesn't have a monopoly on patriotism, we are just the ones that believe the founders got it right and the US Constitution is best for our country. We probably do have a monopoly on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_Won

Nah, that doesn't work Dawgy. She basically said Revere was warning the British that we (the colonists, or whatever we were called back then) were not going to be giving up our arms. The way I understand it, he was warning us (the colonists) that the British were coming to steal our arms.

"He who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be taking away our arms by ringing those bells making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

I would have thought she meant "the colonists" instead of "the British" but she stuck with her original statement on Fox this morning. Only adding that he was warning the colonists that the British were coming, but also warning the British not to do it or else.

---

I have no reservations that what she said was a very stupid statement. I just thought I'd treat it like a "depends on what "is" is" moment and see if those that freely swallowed that would swallow this as well.

Note how no conservatives are on here defending her. WE recognize stupid when we see it. My spin offer was completely tongue in cheek.

My point still stands, however, that she would make a better president than the current one. That is probably more an indictment of obama than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow

I have no reservations that what she said was a very stupid statement. I just thought I'd treat it like a "depends on what "is" is" moment and see if those that freely swallowed that would swallow this as well.

Note how no conservatives are on here defending her. WE recognize stupid when we see it. My spin offer was completely tongue in cheek.

My point still stands, however, that

Quote:

---

she would make a better president than the current one.

---

That is probably more an indictment of obama than anything else.

---

That comment alone shows that you DONT realize how stupid of a statement was made by Palin.:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by genpop

:laugh:Revere was warning the British of the British.....OOOOKKKKKK. Technically she may be correct but I highly doubt that by 1775 colonists were considering themselves as British.

Let's just face it, the darlings of the republicans Palin and Bachmann don't know jack about American history. And this is from the party that is supposed to have some kind of monopoly on patriotism.:rolleyes4:

---

It is because they considered themselves British and weren't being treated as British by Parliament that everything happened. Also, ever heard of Loyalist, Tories, Royalist? Yeah, they existed here. Heck, here them sometimes now-a-days.

They may get it wrong sometimes, but at least they know about American history. Your brood can't remember anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by genpop

That comment alone shows that you DONT realize how stupid of a statement was made by Palin.:o

---

Is it more important to know about the ride of Paul Revere, or to know how many states are in the USA?

Yeah....Palin is the stupid(est) one for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by genpop

That comment alone shows that you DONT realize how stupid of a statement was made by Palin.:o

---

I wouldn't vote for Palin in a Republican primary, but to me, she would do a better job than Obama because she is a conservative and he is a liberal. I don't care if she didn't know George Washington cut down his father's apple tree or not, she shares the same values I have and he does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_Won

I wouldn't vote for Palin in a Republican primary, but to me, she would do a better job than Obama because she is a conservative and he is a liberal. I don't care if she didn't know George Washington cut down his father's apple tree or not, she shares the same values I have and he does not.

---

My thoughts exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_Won

I wouldn't vote for Palin in a Republican primary, but to me, she would do a better job than Obama because she is a conservative and he is a liberal. I don't care if she didn't know George Washington cut down his father's apple tree or not, she shares the same values I have and he does not.

---

It's worse than that... he's a left-wing radical with a chip on his shoulder just like Chavez.