Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Senator Sanders
The blame for this invasion of our privacy rests with members of congress who continue to vote for the Patriot Act
Sarah Palin Gets The 2nd Amendment And Paul Revere’s Ride Wrong
GD Star Rating
loading...
loading...
Sarah Palin Gets The 2nd Amendment And Paul Revere’s Ride Wrong was written by Guest Contributor for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Jun. 2nd, 2011. All Rights Reserved
Related Posts :
The new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has some bad news for Sarah Palin. Thanks to Paul Revere, her ...
Rush Limbaugh went way, way, way off the deep end today by claiming that Sarah Palin wasn't ever wrong a ...
Another Sarah Palin publicity stunt has blown up in her face as while in Iowa, Palin got the number of m ...
By Blogsdna
Enhanced Comments
PoliticusUSA
G+
FacebookLoading Facebook Comments ...
454 Responses to Sarah Palin Gets The 2nd Amendment And Paul Revere’s Ride Wrong
Public Service Advertisements
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 9:40 pm
This vid is one of the saddest things a person could see. She was entirely clueless. She gets off the buss, spews her mindless drivel about the founding fathers and our freedom, immigrants and just whatever pops into her head.
The media sucks it up and the hollow heads believe her
loading...
Steve Kaspar
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 11:52 pm
Yeah… Obama has never gotten anything wrong….duh…he sure has… and oh…he made fun of “Special Olyimpics” kids on Jay Leno one night when joking about his bowling score…oh…sure…
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:15 am
I take it the fact that Palin is clueless cuts pretty deep for you. Do you need help? Someone to talk to?
loading...
lindy
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:23 am
Oh come on, Steve. Is that all you got?
Sarah Palin has PAGES proving she is less educated than a 5th grader.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:31 pm
On behalf of our 5th grade grandson, he is intellectually far superior to her in every way. He can read and he can learn. He can be educated and he can educate himself.
It isn’t actually “education” she is lacking.
It is I.Q.
loading...
Ryan
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:08 am
What does Obama have to do with Palin’s ignorance?
loading...
Daniel
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:08 am
Steve, I’m disabled, and I found nothing insulting about Obama’s comments. God knows I’d be lucky to bowl close to a 200 … it’s called reality and accepting it and not using the disabled as a cop-out or anything like it.
loading...
Critic46
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:53 am
My son is mentally disabled, but consistently bowls better than his caretakers. But bowling and disabilities aside, Palin and Bachmann demonstrate actual ignorance – not just ‘slips’ of the tongue. It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it.
loading...
Mike Hill
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:13 am
You are one sad individual to live in denial who refuses to admit that Simple Sarah “Falin” Palin is a Professional Idiot.
loading...
Anne
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:13 pm
All of us make mistakes, including the president. Unlike Palin, though, most of us are able to admit when we do make them and we don’t pretend that being stupid and ignorant is a virtue. There is no excuse for the cluelessness that Bachmann and Palin show every time they speak publicly.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Oh wow – damn I’m sorry. You’re right.
She’s brilliant …
Waiting now for her and her cultists to Rapture Themselves off of our planet so it can cleanse itself from her and her stoopid.
loading...
Eykis
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Steve,
Go back to the Snowbilly Grifter’s Tiger Beat Fanzine, C4P, where you can find your own kind of fewls.
loading...
Hugh
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:34 am
Not that I think anything of Palin, but the 2nd amendment was actually adopted from British law and was well engrained into the culture of the time. So, the perception that there was a “right” to protect isn’t exactly from outer space. However, it is astonishing how these warped personalities maintain such an audience…more worrisome than politicians like Palin are the MASSES that think they’re brilliant.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:29 pm
But Shiva, this is nothing different for her. She doesn’t think like normal people do. She thinks chaotically – it is a part of her disease/illness.
She really does speak exactly the same thing that she’s thinking.
Dangerous and insane.
loading...
Dusty
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 9:41 pm
This is the stuff the MSM needs to be reporting on instead of saying how qualified she is and how she can win the nomination.
I know I am preaching to the choir here, but damn this woman is an idiot.
loading...
Sally
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Palin makes Bush seem like a high school graduate…almost.
loading...
omomma
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Yeah, close, but still. If it wasn’t for how he got “elected” we wouldn’t be so freaked about her
loading...
JayInDallas
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:39 am
That is the only piece of good news. Palin won’t be backed by the GOP and the same influences that stole the election for Bush won’t be there for her either. The most disturbing aspect of all this is that by electing Bush, there is a precedent for electing an idiot.
loading...
Larry
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:12 pm
O.K. now who is ignorant of history? The election was not stolen for Bush. Gore did not take his home state in 2000 and did not ask for a statewide recount because it may have made things worse. He only asked for recounts in districts that he “thought” he should have won. And this is unheard of. Had he taken Tennessee, Florida would never been an issue. When Reagan clobbered Mondale, even Mondale took his own state. It was the only state, but he got it. As for Palin, I don’t understand why the media is hanging on her every gaff. She is not running. She is pimping the media to make herself king maker and the media is biting hook line and sinker. She is ignorant, but the media are suckers.
loading...
Floridian
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Actually, Larry the state of Florida was sued and had to let the media and an independent organization count the votes that were placed in the 2000 election. Al Gore won the state of Florida, and if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the ballot counting process from taking place Al Gore would have been sworn in as President. What this has to do with Palin being an idiot, Larry, I have no idea.
loading...
Reynardine
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Blanche Ingram is ripening into Bertha Rochester before our eyes.
loading...
Dragonpuff
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:09 pm
I’m starting to see a bit more sarcasm coming from the MSM about Palin the moron. How long can these people keep a straight face when Palin drops her drooling lunacy at each stop? I don’t know who shut Chris Mathews up about Palin (you know someone did) but this would have been the kind of thing that would have made him turn four shades darker and start screaming. Nothing yet from Mr. Leg Tingle about what a balloon head she is. But many are shaking their heads. I almost exploded a vessel when this stupid woman said she wanted to educate Americans. Embarrassing.
loading...
Andrew
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:59 am
I recall Mattews frothing at the mouth (correctly) about Palin during one show. It might have been Jon Stewart who lampooned him, or just a row with Fox News or something. But the “concensus” was that he went too far and so now he is doing what everyone else should do – IGNORE HER.
loading...
Larry
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Exactly. Matthews is no stranger to the gaff himself. In this case he is doing the right thing and other media outlets should follow. She is only as relevant as the media makes her.
loading...
Linda
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:12 pm
The only way tne shameless media will get the message is to have grade school kids call her out on her nonsense.The MSN is all about the $$$, they do not care that Palin is dumbing down America and the world is laughing at us because of it.We have to be creative like the signs posted on her bus and the young man standing near her bus.
loading...
Ingarose
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:13 pm
I don’t know how many articles I have read on this site about Sarah Palin being wrong about history, geography, foreign policy, finance, religion etc.
Don’t you realize that the Palin fanatics do not care about the facts and neither does the media. They, the media, are absolutely going crazy about Sarah, and not too many care about the facts either. They still wonder if she will run and if she could win.
Gosh, if MSNBC and Chris Mathews can’t even figure out why she is so popular, I give up. There is something this woman has which not too many can overcome. She plays dirty with a smile and a wink. So many are falling for her. Don’t mention the polls. They are already going up for her. She could easily win the republican nomination, unless the GOP plays dirty themselves and get her out of the picture.
If she is nominated, do you really think that Obama would be a shoe in? With Obama forever playing nice and trying to reach across the isle, she will slaughter him. (figurately).
Why is it that every time she comes on the scene every TV network, radio outlet, internet is covering her at nausum and then there are posts after posts from readers. People who think that she is just a joke better think again.
loading...
freedomizrizing
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 11:24 pm
The correct form is shoo-in, usually with a hyphen. It has been known in that spelling and with the meaning of a certain winner from the 1930s. It came from horse racing, where a shoo-in was the winner of a rigged race.
In turn that seems to have come from the verb shoo, meaning to drive a person or an animal in a given direction by making noises or gestures, which in turn comes from the noise people often make when they do it.
The shift to the horse racing sense seems to have occurred sometime in the early 1900s. C E Smith made it clear how it came about in his Racing Maxims and Methods of Pittsburgh Phil in 1908: “There were many times presumably that ‘Tod’ would win through such manipulations, being ‘shooed in’, as it were”.
loading...
Ingarose
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:06 am
Thanks for the clarification. I am always interested in the origin of words.
loading...
rm
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:15 pm
WTF
State says no public review of Palin emails in Anchorage
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/157237
loading...
omomma
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Here is the truth: “If we keep making excuses for Sarah Palin’s ignorance, we will have no excuse if she happens to smile and wink her way to the presidency some day.”
There it is. The truth.
loading...
Neil
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Palin is playing with the media. This is so obvious, that Palin, is having fun. Do you really think making her sound like she doesn’t know about Paul Revere’s ride and the Second Amendment mean anything to her. She is laughing at MSM, ABC, CBS, and NBC. This is an intelligent woman that doesn’t do anything unless its calculated to agrevate the media. The media got her the first time, she is getting them this time. It not about how the media tries to make her look, bad, dumb, incompetent, etc. It just makes everyone else that likes her like her more. The media hasn’t caught on and won’t, the media is one she is making look bad, dumb, and incompetent. Congrats Sara, keep up the great work.
loading...
freedomizrizing
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 11:37 pm
No, nobody thinks history or the constitution mean anything to her. Not sure how the media is making her sound that way unless they have their hands up her skirt and are moving her mouth for her. By the way, in that run-on sentence, you used “mean” instead of “means” because you were referring to two different subjects she knows nothing about. However, the choice of which to use should have been based on the first part of the sentence. “Do you really think making her sound like she doesn’t know means anything to her?” See what I mean? Thank you for educating us about how intelligent Sarah Palin is who*(not “that” although I’m tempted to believe she’s not a person as well,)doesn’t do anything that isn’t calculating. So her ingenious plot is to aggravate* the media. Way to win friends and influence people. Way to be a mature leader. By the way, there shouldn’t have been a comma between look and bad, nd there should have been a period, not a coma between wont, and The media. As for “The media is the one she’s making look bad,” you technically can refer to them as the one, but I suspect you were generalizing all of the media into one person-like entity. Congrats! Keep up the good work.
loading...
megan
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 3:00 am
When will people realize they really shouldn’t point out grammar mistakes if they are going to make grammar mistakes themselves. If a person is just ranting who cares if they misspell a word or forget some punctuation. (freedomizrizing you made grammatical mistakes also)That sort of behavior just makes a person go from looking like a pious jackass to a pitiful dumb-ass… :)
loading...
DannyEastVillage
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:03 am
An IQ of 83 and you think she’s intelligent?
loading...
Lee Ann
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 11:34 am
Are you serious? 83? Holy crud. My eight-grader, who is a bit of a social butterfly and bubble-brain who nonetheless gets mostly A’s and the occasional B, has an IQ higher than that. And I know she couldn’t run the government.
Scary and scarier.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:35 pm
I don’t know if it’s that she is stupid or if she simply is unable to format ideas or to learn facts.
That is not a quality we want or need in this country.
Her fans are just that – fans. There is no “movement” to get her elected. The more people get to know her, the less they believe she is qualified.
She is a cult leader – and a con artist.
I am wondering how long it will be before she is indicted for illegal use of campaign funds? That “bus” was paid for by SarahPAC – she said so the other day. Why indict Edwards and not her?
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:28 pm
ROFL Seriously neil dude? Making herself look like a raging moron is some brilliant strategy designed to make the media look bad?
Wow… what’s that kool aid taste like man?
Of course I’m not surprised, you probably also think that Palin continuing to raise money while not yet announcing any presidential intention is “brilliant strategy” but Bachmann doing the EXACT SAME THING is “grifting”.
We should hold a telethon to raise money and buy you a sense of reality…
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Bachmann is being funded by Corporate interests. That’s where she’s getting all of her money.
I don’t think Palin is being heavily funded.
loading...
Adam
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:51 pm
She’s a correspondent on Fox News, and with her paid interviews, she makes about $1,000,000 per year. She’s being funded by all of us talking about her on this blog.
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Baasheert, my point is that on the C4P site, they specifically attacked Bachmann for continuing to do fundraisers despite having not announced her candidacy yet. They claimed this was proof she was just ripping off her supporters. Meanwhile, the site is CRAWLING with people commenting on how “brilliant” Sarah is for holding back and not announcing… while ignoring how she continues to request donations to SarahPAC.
Based on the irony of the specifics they were hammering Bachmann on, they are deluded hypocrites.
loading...
Eykis
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Agrevate is NOT a word, Snowbilly Neil.
Aggravate is a word. Snowbilly is an IDIOT.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Now now, lets not waste our time on spelling if we know what the person meant. I have to say that because I misspell words. Everyone should use Firefox, it tells you when you misspell
loading...
TaffyC
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Sarah Palin wants to educate Americans? About what? She’s barely educated and none of her children have made it to college. Please go home and get your own family educated. We have lots of uneducated people in this country and they are the ones who are falling for this woman. They feel comfortable with her. She knows less than they do. I just scratch my head wondering why she is getting any attention. Mitt Romney is at risk with this woman jabbing at him and they are on the same team. The media should cover every ridiculous thing she says and maybe she will go away.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Well you know, we’ve all heard, that girls should just get pregnant and married (I guess in the Palin family, the order that you do these things is not established).
College/education are obviously not important things in PalinLand.
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
College degrees make it harder to get into reality tv…
loading...
Veritas
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Here is the truth: “If we keep making excuses for Barack Obama’s ignorance, we will have no excuse if he happens to smile and wink her way to the presidency some day.”
Sarah Palin is the Republican version of Barack Obama. THAT is the truth.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:27 pm
So, what do you have to say about the fact she knew nothing of Paul Revere, when the constitution was signed and had the nerve to talk about it? Opinion?
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Shiva – I believe the “Veritas” is referring to the fact that Mr. Obama is BLACK. Let’s see how far Cain gets towards that GOP nomination.
It will NEVER happen.
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Unless they can get Palin and Bachmann to agree on some girl/girl action, they’ll make Cain the VP. It’s really their only hope.
loading...
ann schneider
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:39 pm
You have to lie to say that ….we don’t. There are not enough ways to show how uneducated, in the simplist of ways, Sarah Palin is.
loading...
timmmahhhh
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:30 am
Your statement is the biggest load of Christiofascist crappy ever. Obama has more education that e her and every one of her minions supporters like you COMBINED. Get your head out of pour FOXhole and figure it out.
loading...
Sue in Minnesota
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:46 am
Lacey..is that you? What’s the going rate for trolling progressive web sites? I suppose SarahPAC covers your wages. You have a habit in your writing style that exposes you, despite your alias?
Can you support or at least expand on the “ignorance” of Barack Obama that you refer to? It would be interesting, for a change, if the trolls would actually engage in on ongoing discussion of the issues, something beyond their trademark hit and runs.
loading...
DannyEastVillage
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:04 am
In other words, Obama is Black, right?
loading...
JayInDallas
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:43 am
Hmm. Let’s see. Which one went to Columbia and Harvard? President of the law review? Served 3 terms as senator? (He didn’t quit) Nobel Prize? Yeah. They’re the same.
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Show us the diploma! LOL
No, seriously, I wanna see Sarah’s diploma. I don’t believe she has a “journalism” degree, or “communications” or whatever her story is this week.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:39 pm
How obscene that you have chosen the Veritas as your handle … when you spew only lies.
Did you get 50c to post this? It’s certainly not very original or creative – Palin exhibits narcissism and sociopathy. She is a raving paranoid. If you have seen videos of her daddy Chuckles and the way he paws his granddaughters, you maybe could figure out what went haywire with her.
But “smart”? Change your handle … you don’t deserve it.
loading...
Adam
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
“…smile and wink HIS way into the presidency…” Barack Obama is male.
loading...
Veritas
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:47 pm
My my my… where to begin…
Nice to see that you libs have taken your own “tone down the political rhetoric” thing to heart. All I did was state my own opinion that I think both Obama and Palin are morons (however, at least Palin hasn’t talked about visiting 57 states or suggests that a kid with asthma needs a breathalyzer, but I digress). The responses have been simply some of the finest examples of thoughtful political discourse I have ever seen. Let’s recap, shall we? So far I’ve been called a troll, a paid informant for SarahPAC, “Christiofascist” (whatever the hell that means), a “minion supporter” of Palin, uneducated, a troll, a liar, and a racist (can’t leave that classic liberal retort can we?).
Now to the matter of the subject at hand. Can someone please show me where in her statement she refers to either the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution in any shape, manner, or form? You can’t because she didn’t. She talked about “arms” and you folks immediately extrapolate this to mean that she was referring to the 2nd Amendment and, not only that damn it, but she doesn’t even know when the Constitution was signed! (As if most folks here know that date themselves; I teach college classes so, trust me, I know all about the stellar level of knowledge that young folks today have about American history)
For those who didn’t bother to read the above posted info regarding Paul Revere’s ride (and I also strongly believe there are many here who have never even heard of Paul Revere until this story came out), he was warning colonists about the approach of British troops who intended to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock and then seize a cache of weapons (aka firearms or “arms”) and ammunition stored in Concord. The idea of freemen having the right to keep and bear arms was not magically dreamed up during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It was grounded in centuries of English common law, and the colonists were very well aware of the importance of protecting that right, especially if they intended to go to war with the Crown.
Now, if we can do away with the insults and the false assumptions – that can only be the result of people so blinded by their political ideology and pure hatred for Palin – we can actually have some of that intelligent discourse that some of you claim to want.
If you want a laundry list of gaffes by Obama, we can go down that road. He picked Joe “Stand Up Chuck” Biden as his VP, and THAT alone shows that Obama is a moron. He’s backed down from most of his own major campaign promises, including Gitmo, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, earmarks, lobbyists, transparency, and bipartisanship. His health care legislation was such a foolproof program that his administration has given over 1000 waivers to businesses. His economic program, and his Secretary of the Treasury Tim “Turbo Tax” Geithner, have been such epic successes that our unemployment rate hovers at 9%, housing continues to decline, and our debt is so high that Moody’s warned the US that they will be reducing our credit rating. Before we get into the whole “that’s Bush’s fault” argument, it took us decades to get in the shape that we are in, and both Republicans and Democrats participated. Obama is an epic failure and has no real-world experience on dealing with anything other than writing college papers.
Now, is Pain the answer? Good lord no! She’s also a highly-charismatic speaker who has no practical experience and no clear plan for dealing with any of these issues. There’s enough legitimate stuff to criticize her about without fabricating stupid crap like this 2nd Amendment/Constitution thing that she didn’t even say.
So, who am I? I’m a Libertarian who loathes both major parties and loathes the closed-mindedness of liberals even more. Not paid by anyone to say what I say here, and if someone who has the audacity to actually challenge your beliefs (imagine the horror in that, and in a free society no less!), if that qualifies me as a troll, then I guess I am a troll.
loading...
Harold Harcourt
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Captain comb-over and Schlemiel in 2012!
(the worlds gonna end anyway so why not go out laughing?)
loading...
Infidel753
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Give ‘em one barrel if by land, both barrels if by sea!
How much longer can this gaffe carnage continue? To all the people who are saying that it’s useless to point out her ignorance because her fans don’t care — it’s not her fans that such efforts are intended to persuade. They’re unreachable, anyway. But there’s a value in calling attention to her blundering, for the sake of the undecided. There’s always a pool of people whose minds aren’t made up. They’re reachable. If her appeal can be restricted to just her blinkered fan base, she’ll no longer be much of a threat.
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 11:15 pm
SInce the media has taken the approach of reporting and not correcting, soon a lot of people will be repeating these gaffes as if they are accurate. How sad…
loading...
historian
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:05 am
This was not a gaffe by Sarah. The media has it all wrong.
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:41 pm
That’s right, Sarah has the secret inside story of Paul Revere that the socialist/marxist/kenyan anti-colonialist liberal media is afraid to tell you!
It’s like when they say that science, sufficiently advanced, would appear to be magic. In this case it’s genius, sufficiently advanced, appears to be abject stupidity!
Though Occam’s Razor would suggest that it is, in fact, just abject stupidity. But since your fake internet name is “historian” (humbly not capitalized, nice one), obviously you are an authority not to be questioned.
So I’ll go with what you said. :)
LOL
loading...
NA
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Where’s the part where she talks about the 2nd Amendment? That’s right because she does not. She may not be the most articulate, but this was about providing arms for the revolution and not about the right to bear arms as a whole.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 11:31 pm
the 2nd amendment part was when she was talking about them coming to take the guns from the people. It doesnt take much to understand what she was saying
What this was about was Paul reveres ride and what he did. She was clueless
loading...
Jeff
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:18 am
On the 16th he made a trip to Concord, a key community because it was the temporary home of the Provincial Congress and also a storehouse for militia guns, powder, and shot. He warned the residents there that redcoats were likely to be dispatched in the near future to seize the town’s arms supply.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1261.html
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:27 am
Are you going to try and tell us that Sarah knew that? No way. Although you are right, she was referring to the 2nd amendment. Its a common theme with her
loading...
Asher
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:59 am
No, all she said was that he didn’t want them to take the colonists’ guns. If I’m like, “hey, don’t take my ice cream,” that doesn’t mean I’m referring to some law under which it’s illegal to steal my ice cream, does it?
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:49 pm
To be fair, if you watch that clip, the way Sarah speaks in clipped chunks of words while literally trying to run away from the scene indicates that she knew she didn’t know shit about Paul Revere and was, in her typical fashion, trying to babble out enough words to appear to be saying something, while not actually saying anything, while making her escape.
So, what she “knew” about Revere consisted of: “town” “horse ride” “the british” “warning” and “arms”. She simply tried to float on those terms just long enough to escape the reporters.
I’m impressed that she didn’t try to throw in some kind of “free-market solutions” quip involving RevereWare…
loading...
Veritas
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Yes, I think that’s what people are saying. Anyone who has even remotely looked at the history of the American Revolution knows all about this. It’s not like this is some new information that popped up last week. We’ve known this for over 200 years now. Just because you don’t know American history doesn’t mean that everyone, even a dolt like Palin, doesn’t know it either.
loading...
Mary MacElveen
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 11:32 pm
To borrow a phrase often used by Keith Olbermann in reference to Palin, “This woman is an idiot!”
loading...
karen
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Jason and Sarah.
Keep reporting. Keep speaking up.
We need you.
Otherwise, we fall in to a vortex of………..
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Pr0n? Spam? Don’t leave us hanging!! LOL
Just kidding, I agree, this blog rocks. :)
loading...
betty
Jun. 2nd, 2011 at 11:41 pm
I just can’t get over how stupid this woman is and why the media follow her around. What is she educating us about??? As a college educated woman, I’m disgusted by her and her ignorance.
loading...
historian
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:03 am
I’d take her “ignorance” over your “college education” any day, considering she was right on the facts here, and you were wrong.
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:52 pm
That’s right, Revere’s ride was all bout the bell ringing and the shots fired into the air!
Thanks Glenn Beck!
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Good then I sincerely hope you get an opportunity to vote for this intellectual giant. Because she is going to get CRUSHED if she runs /
The GOP will never ever give that idiot the nomination. They know she is crazy.
loading...
rob
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:03 am
Alaska to release 250 pounds of Palin emails, some may touch on family matters :)
http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/02/alaska-to-release-250-pounds-of-palin-emails-some-may-touch-on-family-matters/
loading...
Veritas
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Wouldn’t be nice if we could get some insight into Barack Obama’s private life? Mr. Transparency himself won’t even release his college transcripts.
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Why is it that you can’t stay on topic re Palin? What does anyone else’s private life have to do with Sarah Palin’s inability to get basic facts right? This is supposed to be an educational tour and yet, you balk when her blatant historical errors are pointed out. It’s not as if she didn’t JUST take the tour, for heaven’s sake.
loading...
Brenan
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:36 am
I am a Democrat. Voted for Clinton, Kerry and Obama.
But the press blew this story.
The fact is, the British were seeking to seize an arsenal. That means take away potential weapons.
The stuff about the Second Amendment was stuff the media put into Palin’s mouth.
Unfortunately, here ths media in their stupidity plays into La Diva Sarah’s hands. By trying to make too much of something that, for once, about which they know less than Palin, they reduce their pathetic credibility eveb further.
I could never cast a vote for president for someone who believes, against all evidence, that evolution is not a proven scientific fact. But fair is fair: and in this story, the press has it all wrong and Sarah Palin has it right.
loading...
Larry
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:48 am
I’m sorry, but there is no evidence for evolution, none. No fossils, nothing that proves that theory.
loading...
timmmahhhh
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:32 am
There is plenty of evidence for evolution for those educated enough to understand it.
loading...
Voice of Reason
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:05 am
On the strength of millions of pieces of mutually-confirming evidence without a single one in contradiction, evolution by natural selection is as factual as are gravitation, heliocentrism, and the germ theory of disease. Educate yourself and stop spouting retrograde stultifying nonsense.
loading...
Reynardine
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:48 am
Larry, I’m so damn sorry there wasn’t enough money for a field trip to a good museum when you were a kid. This is a warning to us all about the dangers of underfunding our schools.
loading...
DannyEastVillage
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:09 am
Larry, have you ever opened a book or been anywhere near a museum?
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
No fossils?
Haven’t spent much time in the Galapagos have you?
This is a debate you cannot win and you will not win. It simply proves that you are intellectually dense. No one will even go there with you.
loading...
suzi yee
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:03 am
point well taken…..personally, I couldn’t stomach listening to it so I just read the little transcript in this article. It is sad though that she can’t seem to complete a thought or a sentence…..
loading...
Enjay in E MT
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:25 am
Obviously she went through the Paul Revere House without reading ANY of the material displayed.
We often we hear the Palin children are “homeschooled”
I hope they’ve hired a tutor.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Chuckles did it … he loves to pat his girls … and Sally – never says a word or opens her mouth.
Her father is creepy – beyond creepy. That can have a huge impact on how a child is raised – especially when mom looks the other way.
loading...
Sharon
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:35 am
My new favorite bumper sticker
Palin/Trump 2012
I QUIT/YOU’RE FIRED
loading...
kathy
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:42 am
This idiot, I am so not surprised at anything she says or does. She has made american woman laughingstocks in other countries, they expexr all of to ve that damn dumb. Please Sarah, go away
loading...
Daniel
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:10 am
Doesn’t the tea party leader homeschool her kids as well? Remember: she got a major historical fact wrong as well.
loading...
suzi yee
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:01 am
I don’t think she’s home enough to homeschool. But not only would they be completely wrong with history, can you imagine their science lessons? “Now, it all started with Adam and Eve and the dinosaurs….” (ha ha….only on the Flintstones, Sarah)
loading...
historian
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:13 am
The British officers began to interrogate Revere, whereupon Revere astonished his captors by telling them more than they even knew about their own mission. (HA!) He also told them that he had been warning the countryside of the British plan and that their lives were at risk if they remained in the vicinity of Lexington because there would soon be 500 men there ready to fight. Revere, of course, was bluffing.
The Regulars had Revere remount his horse and they headed toward Lexington Green, when suddenly, they heard a gunshot! Revere told the British officer that the shot was a signal “to alarm the country!”. Now the British troops were getting very nervous (hehe).
A few minutes later, they were all startled to hear the heavy crash of an entire volley of musketry from the direction of Lexington’s meeting house and then the Lexington town bell began clanging rapidly! Jonathan Loring, a Lexington resident captured earlier, turned to his captors and shouted “The bell’s a’ ringing! The town’s alarmed, and you’re all dead men!”
(http://bessel.org/revere.htm)
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Okay, NOW I’m starting to doubt your veracity… So you’re saying that Revere never warned anyone, he was a prisoner and bells and gunshots just happened to go off and like McGuyver he used that to play psy-ops on his captors.
But, when Palin interprets that as Revere himself rode through towns shooting and ringing bells to warn the British, “she got it right”. MmmHmm.
I’m thinking you’ll need some liniment after contorting yourself like that…
My guess is that she briefly glanced at something she Googled, but in the moment of being asked, realized she hadn’t actually absorbed much of the info and so babbled out a few incoherent blobs of key words, hoping that would do the job just long enough for her to run away.
loading...
Psychodiva
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 3:54 am
The USA gained back the respect of the world when they elected Obama (redressing the lack of respect due to Bush!) this will all be lost and you will be the joke of the world if you elect this idiot woman.
loading...
suzi yee
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:58 am
agree 100%
loading...
Voice of Reason
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:26 pm
You hit it dead square. Not only are you right, but I will LEAVE if we elect that imbecile. That will be the last straw.
loading...
Veritas
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Do you really believe that? Really? If so, you obviously don’t pay much attention to the foreign press these days…
loading...
David Adams
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:10 am
“He had to quietly deliver the message that the regulars were coming to arrest John Adams and John Hancock. ”
That should be Samuel Adams and John Hancock.
loading...
Alexandra
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:39 am
You know who I feel sorry for???
I feel sorry for Piper who is learning all this Crap from her mother!..And her other Impressionable Children
Watch in later years, They will be doing a report on Paul Revere, and they will tell the teacher..Oh yeah..my mom and my visited Paul revere’s place..and she told us all bout …the famous ride..and this..and that…and this.
And they will do the report..And The teacher will give them a failing grade cause it’s all Bologna..
And Then Palin will come in her big tour bus, cause you know she will have one..to the school and get in all up in the teachers face..and tell the teach…how dare you give my children a failing grade. Then the teacher will say well…maybe if you told the truth bout Paul Pevere, What everyone know..instead of this BS crap that you told way back then..maybe your children would’ve gotten it all rgiht…
but no..you had to tell this other crap bout Paul Revere..SO i gave your kids a F..And I suggest you go read the History books..the real history books..and not spew all this false crap!
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:46 pm
During this trip, we have all seen that Piper is well on her way to Willow and Bristol’s behavior. She is rude and sullen. She has a smart mouth. Obviously people tell her she is cute and she believes it.
Palin has her hands full with these girls – and no one to blame but herself.
If our grandkids had manners like this one does towards adults, they’d be spending a lot of time in their rooms thinking about attitude.
loading...
Henry Mu
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 6:27 am
Ya gotta admit that if the colonies hadn’t had those rifles that were as good as those of British soldiers, there couldn’t have been a revolution, so…
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:06 pm
True dat!
loading...
Jason Jenkins
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:13 am
I have no respect for Palin, but she didn’t mention the Second Amendment, and the British WERE on their way to seize a weapons store at Concord.
loading...
DR
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:13 am
If you are criticizing historical inaccuracy, don’t confuse Sam Adams and John Adams just a few paragraphs apart.
loading...
alex
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:13 am
actually neither of you have the paul revere story correct. annnnnnnd palin is still the moron we all know her to be
http://www.cracked.com/article_18755_5-fictional-stories-you-were-taught-in-history-class.html <<<first one of the article.
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Hee hee… I get all my history from Cracked.com! They’re the only credible source left.
loading...
Kathleen
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:02 am
I think Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are on a secret mission to get the 19th Amendment repealed.
loading...
Reynardine
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:08 am
Seriously, that might be what they are being used for, even if they are too conceited and witless to realize it.
loading...
Pepper17
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:45 pm
I have been thinking what a horrible disservice they are doing to women everywhere. And those who think women aren’t qualified will point to them, rather than all the wonderful, competent women who are.
loading...
Veritas
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Really? Is that what you believe? Are you so narrow-minded that a woman can’t disagree with you on political issues without wanting to do away with the 19th Amendment. Do you realize how epically ignorant that sounds?
loading...
suzi yee
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:58 am
Hearing her speak and then reading the transcript are two different things….she may sound OK in ‘real life’, but reading the transcript, my gawd….she can’t even speak in a complete sentence. NOT presidential material…
loading...
Jason
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:51 am
The fact that this moron is even considered a political figure in this country is absolutely absurd. Not only did she obviously not finish the third grade with a comment like that, but lets not forget people…SHE QUIT HER JOB AS GOVERNOR! This lunatic needs to get a reality check, and quick.
loading...
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:09 am
We need to let some high school kids debate this moron too. Is it possible to know any LESS about America and American history than this chick who can see Russia from Alaska? I’m afraid to ask what she’s going to see from her new pad in the SW
loading...
Reynardine
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:23 am
Colombia
loading...
Jenn Stanley
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:30 am
Do you hate women? Why are you calling her a “chick”? Have some respect for women, she’s someone’s mother, daughter and wife. Enough of left wing sexism already. You wouldn’t like it if I called Obama the N word would you? Racism and Sexism are wrong!
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:06 pm
chick = dude. there’s another word that equals the n word, and you won’t see that word here either. It was Sarah Palin herself who called women a “cackle of rads”. How’s that feminist thingy workin out for y’all?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:10 pm
U can check the trash bin to see how feminism works for her :)
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:11 pm
LOL Chick = n*****?? “Left Wing sexism”? Talk about manufacturing yourself some outrage.
Try listening to Rush Limbaugh for an hour and then tell me about sexism and racism and how it’s coming from “the left”.
Poor kool aid drinking schmuck.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:47 pm
desert – snakes, javalina, scorpions, coyotes and a lot of dirt/cactus.
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:08 pm
My middle finger.
loading...
Just_a_Patriot
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:17 am
Someone needs to shut this woman up.That being said, I am willing step up to the plate. I believe I have the perfect thing to gag her with for a while… it’ll be a win-win for everyone involved.
1) She won’t be able to talk 2) I’ll be enjoying myself 3) When all is said and done, she’ll honestly be able to call it the smartest thing to ever come out of her mouth.
I leave interpretation up to the rest of you.
loading...
Nitpicker
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:35 am
From the article (and oh-so true): When Palin spews her own incorrect version of history, we have a duty as Americans to correct it. As Sarah Palin considers running for president, we have a duty to report on her real words and deeds.
This is not a right or left issue. I think it goes for ANYONE who plans to run for president.
loading...
Uncle Mike
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:46 am
It was bad enough when someone (might have been Michelle Bachmann said the Crash of 1929 was caused by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 (dates wrong), that Smoot-Hawley lowered tariffs (it raised them, thus turning what should have been a sharp but only 2 years’ depression into a 12-year one), and that it was signed into law by liberal Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt (it was signed into law by conservative Republican President Herbert Hoover against the advice of his aides). But for Palin to say Paul Revere was standing up for a right which was not American law for another 16 years (Bill of Rights fully ratified in 1791), when there was NO American law for over a year because there was only “British America” until July 4, 1776, shows that she just repeats what she’s told, without even considering whether it’s accurate or honest. Honest mistakes are forgivable, but dishonesty, and blatant ignorance, are not.
loading...
Joel
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:50 am
I LOVE this article and couldn’t agree more! One thing though, if the hat is superimposed and she wasn’t really wearing it, please DO NOT alter anything you post. This lends to the appearance that you may also be inclined to alter the facts. So let’s keep it ‘white’ journalism. If that is the real hat she was wearing, my apologies, it just looks fake, jacked up, and an unbelievably poor wardrobe choice.
loading...
Jenn Stanley
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 11:00 am
It’s funny how the replies that “love this article” are posted right away by the moderator, however the ones that disagree are still waiting “for moderation approval” Hmmmm, I’m starting to get the feeling that opposing points of view are not welcome on this site….
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 11:34 am
1st, all people without previous approved posts are automatically in Moderation. Most sites do this to protect their readers from the swearing and lunacy your posts present. Its ok to present a differing point of view, swearing, screaming in caps about liberals and calling people names gets you tossed immediately. Want to post? Do it like a grownup
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Your post appeared. Don’t get your panties in a wad – first time or two comments are always moderated – NOT censored.
Geez…
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:15 pm
If this were C4P the posts would NEVER see the light of day. SO I guess it’s all just degrees, yes?
loading...
HelenWheels
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:28 pm
If the roles were reversed and I tried to post rightwing-bashing comments on Free Republic, it would never be posted and I’d be banned immediately. I know this because it happened… OH wait, without any rightwing bashing. Just simply a disagreement.
loading...
Siobhra
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 11:00 am
She might win. Think about it. Each President for the last 4 or 5 has been dumber than the one before him. Each one has made our country less liked. The Dems had to really scrape the bottom of the barrel to find Obama and thus a worse President than Bush. Now for the Republicans to go lower they have to look to Her. (not like they have a shortage of low)
loading...
Voice of Reason
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:28 pm
That’s a great deal of nonsense, troll. Nice try, though.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Badda bing / give this troll the Award of the Day for Stupidity.
Looks – no one cares about an opinion like this. It is way too obvious you are dumb and a troll. And possibly paid to post here.
It’s too “out of the mainstream” … it’s too weird and it makes no sense. It’s also not true.
Have you thought of posting at Conservatives4Palin? Or did you come from SarahPAC?
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:16 pm
How do *I* get paid to post here?!? I can type stupider things that that amateur!
loading...
Lisaym314
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:13 pm
I can’t understand how she shows her face in public without being embarrassed. She is by far the most ignorant individual I’ve ever encountered in the political world.
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:17 pm
You’d be surprised at the way large sums of money can cure embarrassment. ;)
loading...
I Patel
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:24 pm
First off, it was Israel Hoover who did the actual ride. And second off, WHY ARE WE VOTING FOR PEOPLE LIKE HER?!
loading...
I Patel
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Israel Bissell, not Israel Hoover, I confused his last name with another vacuum cleaner
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Hilarious! Thanks…..and no I doubt we are even going to get to vote for her. She won’t run. She doesn’t want to give up her financial gravy train.
loading...
ParkyPundit
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:42 pm
If I may quote from Stewie Griffin, from the episode when Brian’s girlfriend comes to dinner for the first time…
IT’S LIKE SHE’S F***ING FIVE!!!
loading...
David S. Clancy
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:34 pm
To the many Palin critics here: I am not a fan of Sarah Palin either, but she does not deserve this kind of criticism for her extemporaneous comments about Paul Revere’s ride. Palin’s account isn’t perfect, but, as a general, non-academic’s impression of what happened that morning, it’s not nearly as bad as many people here seem to think. The seminal book on the topic is David Hackett Fischer’s Paul Revere’s Ride. The British mission on April 19 was to seize a store of gunpowder that was reputed to be in Concord, Massachusetts, as part of a general effort by the British command in Boston to deprive the American militia of arms. Revere made his ride to generally warn the countryside of that mission, and *also* to warn Hancock and Adams of the possibility that they would be arrested. (Hancock and Adams were in Lexington, which was on the road to Concord.) As to “bells,” I’ve seen all sorts of comments in the media today to the effect that bells had nothing to do with Revere’s “secret” ride, but the fact of the matter is that Revere’s ride was a general warning to the countryside of a British troop movement. Revere stopped at house after house on his ride, and, as part of a previously-arranged alarm system, town after town in eastern Massachusetts, upon hearing the news, began ringing bells. The bells are what drew militia to Concord from all over Massachusetts, leading to the militia’s victory there over the later-arriving British. Palin’s account is an impressionistic but broadly accurate description of Paul Revere’s ride. I know it’s fashionable to criticize Sarah’s every utterance, but when the criticisms are more uninformed than the utterances, we have a problem.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Remmeber when Jesus told old saint Pete that before the night was out he would deny jesus? Well you just got Sarah
loading...
Lisa
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:25 pm
“Impressionistic but broadly accurate”? What are you smoking?
The ride had nothing to do with 2nd amendment rights. She has recast a major event, wholly and completely inaccurately, as linked to the right to bear arms….which it was not! He was warning Hancock and Adams of their imminent arrest.
loading...
J.R
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Not a Palin fan either, but I don’t see how the opening of the revolution could be any MORE related to Second Amendment issues. As noted, the crisis was initiated when the British moved to seize weapons and gunpowder, in addition to arresting colonial leaders.
loading...
Owen
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Nonsense. A mission to confiscate a store of gunpowder and cannon is not the same as a mission to confiscate all weapons from the citizenry.
loading...
david s. clancy
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Owen: Again, the seminal book on the topic is “Paul Revere’s Ride” by Brandeis historian David Hackett Fischer. As it explains, the British march to Concord in April 1775 was an effort to seize munitions, and it was one part of a broader British effort, beginning long before, to “disarm” the colonists. I quote from p. 43: starting in 1774 British General Gage’s “purpose was to remove from Yankee hands the means of violent resistance until a time when cooler heads would prevail. To that end, General Gage proposed to disarm New England by a series of small surgical operations . . . The plan had one major weakness. It could only succeed by surprise. The people of New England were jealous of their liberties, including their right to keep and bear arms. If they learned in advance of General Gage’s intentions, his movement toward stopping the movement toward war could start one instead.” This is basic history. 1774-1775 was a period in which the British authorities were threatening the colonists’ “right to bear arms” — see quote above — and in which the colonists were actively resisting that threat, by organizing militias and alarm systems (the “bells” Palin referred to), and by moving weapons and gunpowder from one hiding place to the next. I do not admire Palin, partly because I do not think she is well-informed, but on the point here she was basically correct. If you’re going to criticize her, that’s obviously your right, but I think this is the wrong battle.
loading...
Owen
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Gage’s surgical operations were against known rebel arsenals that consisted of cannon and large stores of ammunition and gunpowder. He was not going after the small arms that a citizen might use for basic self-defense. In fact, Gage sent an expedition to Salem, MA in Feb 1775 to confiscate cannon held there. It resulted in a stalemate but almost started the war at that point.
It is my personal opinion that the Second Amendment does not give me the right to plant a Howitzer in my backyard.
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
People these are muzzle loading muskets…
NO GUNPOWDER = NO GUN.
If the Brits get the main store of gunpowder, they disarm the militia. They failed April 19th in Massachusetts, and succeeded in Virginia two days later.
NO MILITIA GUNPOWDER = NO MILITIA GUNFIRE.
The Brits knew that and they knew there was almost no, if any, domestic gunpowder production in the Americas.
NO GUNPOWDER = NO AMERICAN REVOLUTION
One of the biggest French contributions to the war effort was gunpowder, smuggled in before France officiall declared war, via Hortalez, and company, a cover for the French government.
And I thank the Lord that what the Second Amendment is or is not about doesn’t depend on what Owen thinks…
loading...
david s. clancy
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Lisa, if this is important to you, take a look at the book I cited. Revere was warning the American militia of a British military operation to seize munitions in Concord, Massachusetts. On the way, he intended to warn Hancock and Adams. This is a historical fact, and not at all a controversial one. So, yes, Palin was basically right: Revere’s ride was indeed about protecting the colonist’s right to bear arms, which was under threat from a British military intent on disarming the colonists. Do you have some source that supports your apparent belief that Revere’s ride was *not* about warning the colonists of a British expedition to seize arms? If so please let me know what it is. I’m interested.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:05 pm
It was not about protecting the colonist’s right to bear arms as no one had told them they couldnt. This was an act of war, not one of who has what rights.
loading...
david s. clancy
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Shiva, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. First, Palin didn’t mention the Second Amendment — she referred to the British was wanting to “take away our arms.” Second, in this respect, she was indisputably correct. Again, the seminal book on the topic is “Paul Revere’s Ride” by Brandeis historian David Hackett Fischer. As it explains, the British march to Concord in April 1775 was an effort to seize munitions, and it was one part of a broader British effort, beginning long before, to “disarm” the colonists. I quote from p. 43: British General Gage’s “purpose was to remove from Yankee hands the means of violent resistance until a time when cooler heads would prevail. To that end, General Gage proposed to disarm New England by a series of small surgical operations . . . The plan had one major weakness. It could only succeed by surprise. The people of New England were jealous of their liberties, including their right to keep and bear arms. If they learned in advance of General Gage’s intentions, his movement toward stopping the movement toward war could stop one instead.” This is basic history. Where are you getting your facts?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:34 pm
She was correct, but I can promise you its not becuase she knew what was going on. She was using the 2nd amendment usage here. Make no mistake about it. She didn t have to say “2nd amendment”, becuase she was thinking only of the second. She enver had any idea the brits were coming to take the weapons in the story of Paul Revere. And if you think she did even for a second, then you need to reboot.
They were not jealous of their rights, because no one had ever told them they they couldnt have weapons. Do you not think thats what the british would do? Take the weapons? Of course they would, but at that time there was no “right to bear arms”. Everyone had weapons. and they needed those arms for fighting the brits. At that time they had no rights as Americans as the constitution was not in play yet. Now I agree the brits were coming to take the guns and other supplys, but that is only a natural thing for them to do.
loading...
Dragonpuff
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Sorry. Revere did not fire guns, ring bells, nor was the ride about warning the British that we wanted to keep our gun rights. Sarah Palin is teasing and hinting that she might want the most important job in the world and you actually say everyone is too hard on her for babbling something that wouldn’t past kindergarden muster? She is not an artistic third grader.
And, it is not fashionionabl to criticize Palin. She herself is the Critcizer in Chief.
She CRITICIZES the President, the media and everything that she does not understand (which is a lot) CONSTANTLY on Facebook and Twitter and behind her FAUX cohorts.
She is a famous idiot and no amount of of historical license will make that any different.
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Yeah you are right Puff.
If the Brits are coming we just pick up the phone and called Lexington & Concord. No, wait, we put it out as a public service announcement on the radio and TV. No, we can blog it. No, wait, we can have the local police cruise the neighborhoods in their cruiders and use their loud speak…
Aw crud. It’s 1775. All we can do to wake the neighborhood and tell them that the British troops are coming is ring these doggone chuch bells and fire these cheesy guns. Drat.
No Puff, I suspect Revere didn’t ring bells or fire guns to alert the militia to assemble, but I bet someone did. So Palin is correct.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“but I bet someone did. So Palin is correct.”
Hello? I seen him standing on the corner, he must be guilty
The stars shine, therefore they are flashlights ion the sky
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
No, it’s because I am a historian by training and ringing church bells and I know that firing guns WAS a common means of calling the citizens to assemble or warn them in emergencies in the 18th century.
I repeat, Revere and the others were couriers, they sparked the alerts as they passed houses and villages. And like a modern telephone tree, those people rang bells and fired guns calling the people to arms. Palins reference was clearly hyperbole, and didn’t mean he personally rang the bell or fired the guns, but that his actions that night instigated the events that followed.
The remainder of your comments are very non-sequitur.
“A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace.” — James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No.46).
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
You are making assumptions I agree about everything you say that could have happened, but there is no evidence it did happen. Now you say what she says hyperbole.
My comments were intended to show how non-sequitur your response was. You bet someone did something so Palin was right.
And your quotation is meaningless to this discussion. This was not gun control, this was about the Brits taking storehouses of arms, destroying food and housing. Its not just about guns. And not all of our Bill of Rights comes from the Brits The 13th? 15th, you could go on and on. Our court system comes from the Magna carta.
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Yoo hoo… The “BILL OF RIGHTS” are the 1st ten amendments to the Constitution. The ones with BIGGER numbers are simply “amendments.”
Our legal system comes from a combination of English Common Law, to include Magna Carta, and in Louisiana some elements of Napoleonic Law.
I’ll try this one more time.
The British taking the militia’s gunpowder was gun control, because it would render their muskets/weapons useless. While the militia would have their muskets, the British control of the gunpowder would mean NO AMMUNITION for the muskets. Hence, the weapons are not weapons.
How can that not be gun control?
Lets say today a law was passed that you could have all the guns you want, but you would not be allowed bullets for them.
Is that not gun control?
Same, same, April 19th. The Brits couldn’t take the individual guns from about 3 million colonists, but they COULD get control of the ammunition.
The quote from Federalist #46 is seminal to this discussion, and clearly illustrates TWO of the basic principles Madision lays out as essential to liberty. Freedom of the Press and the right to individual arms, which you can recognize from the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution.
You simply cannot fail to comprehend that!!
Seminal issues in the American Revolution can be found most eloquently in the Declaration of Independance, but the shooting war against the British Empire was instituted by gun control. Not the Stamp Act, Not the Intolerable Acts, Not the Tea Tax, but in the final analysis because the British tried to disarm the people.
I get irritated when folks can’t seem to understand the why and how of our national origins. Perhaps it’s like Nelson’s telescope put to his blind eye at Copenhagen… He simply didn’t want to see what he didn’t want to see.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Well basically you are saying that all wars are gun control movements
Ah yes, the seminal thing again! Heard that all last night!
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Where the HELL do you get that from. Take your prozak and go back to watching the View. You will feel better soon.
loading...
Bob W
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:50 pm
No, David. “The truth of the matter” is not what is written in history books (which Palin clearly didn’t read anyway.) Revere was captured by the British before he made it to the first town. The ride and warnings were done by a sixteen-year-old girl.
Betsy Ross did not make the first American flag. She merely ‘improved’ upon its design.
Benedict Arnold was not a traitor. His wife was. She had an affair with a British officer and Arnold covered for her because he still loved her.
George Washington never cut down a cherry tree.
Our U.S. history books are full of out-and-out lies, misinformation and pure fantasy.
loading...
UnrepentantCurmudgeon
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Geez, you people. She didn’t talk about “gun rights”; she said that it was about telling the British “you aren’t taking our guns”. OK, modern phrasing, but that is exactly what happened and what the battles of Lexington and Concord were about. Your little guru has shtupped the pooch, lampooning Sarah by recasting her words as something they are not, so own it. Easley is a hack.
As for Revere’s ride Bob, you are also wrong. Revere made it from Boston to Lexington (the first town) where he and Dawes met with Adams and Hancock. Revere was arrested as he tried to get from Lexington to Concord and encountered a British patrol about halfway between the two towns.
If folks are going to condemn Sarah for being misinformed it would be well if you didn’t demonstrate such historical misinformation yourself. Pathetic.
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:39 pm
warning the british?
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Yeah.. I suspect British colonists shooting at the Kings troops could be taken as a “warning” about something.
“Lay down your arms, you damned Rebels, and Disperse.” -Major Pitcairn, Lexington Common, April 19th, 1775
loading...
Debbie
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Something that I keep asking is why doesn’t anyone ever notice when Obama screws up something, which is every time he speaks? Example-when he said “57 states” talking about our United States? Every 1st grader knows better! He is continuely flubbing up very important facts! But, oh that’s right, nobody sees that!
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Ah yes the 57 states thing. Obviously you never seen the whole video. Sarah didnt let you?
Is the article about sarah or Obama? Quick, make a decision! Choose wisely!
loading...
ummmm, what?!
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Who cares if she got this wrong, and doesn’t know the name of a US newspaper, and believes jesus and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Its not like she’s gonna run for president one day….oh, wait.
loading...
howard levine
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 1:35 am
She absolutely does deserve the criticism for being ignorant to facts of history, especially 5th grade history.
Not only is her account not perfect, it isn’t even close to fact.
You were probably there, you seem to know details that most of us do not, even the historians.
Her recanting of the story is much more than impressionistic, it is downright surrealistic.
I do have a problem, it is when people defend the idiotic and make excuses to act as if it is innocence. Sarah Palin is a joke to be laughed at, she is purely for entertainment purposes, beyond that, she is scary, people are so gullible they actually think she is somewhat intelligent with her babbling. That is with the exception of any who does have half a brain.
loading...
Corah
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 9:52 am
My 4th graders know more about American history than she does, they also went to the Old North Church this year and can ACCURATELY tell what Paul Revere did. Revere didn’t warn the British anything, he warned the colonists. He also never said ‘The British are coming!’, because they were all British at the time.
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Do you understand what speaking in the hyperbole is Cora?
What message, exactly, do you think that hundreds of British citizens taking up arms and firing on Kings troops sends?
They committed the capital crime of Treason because the British government wanted the colonials firearms rendered useless and thus render them “more governable.”
Can agree that shooting at them in opposition to their acts could be considered some kind of “warning?”
I think while a bit hyperbolic, Palin’s remarks were historically accurate. Once word got to villages outside Boston the alarm to call forth the militia would have been by “ringing church bells” and “firing guns”: no telephones, radio or TV ya know.
We have a 2nd Amendment BECAUSE of things the Kings government(s) tried to impose on us, to include individual disarmament.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
When did the English write a law disarming us? Trying to take weapons, food and tents so we could not have a war and trying to take individual arms is 2 different things.
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
You need to learn your history Shiva.
Each and EVERY protection in the Bill of Rights comes from our ancestors experiences with the British. I except the 9th and 10th Amendments whicha are reserved rights and powers clauses.
From our past:
[d]id endeavor to subvert … the laws and liberties of this kingdom. …
5. By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace, without consent of parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law.
6. By causing several good subjects, being protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law.
English Bill of Rights, Walter Laquer and Barry Rubin, Ed., The Human Rights Reader, (New York, New American Library: 1979), 104.
Selective or universal disarmament is a tool of tyrants thoughout time. Arms, and access to them, are the base of all power.
“The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other type of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to permit uprising. Therefore, the heads of provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government.”–Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, 29 August, 1558
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
That certainly does not cover all the BORs. Especially slavery, Judicial limits, cruel and unusual punishment, trial by jury in civil cases
“Selective or universal disarmament is a tool of tyrants thoughout time.”
Which is something any foreign military would attempt to do. Would you not think? No doubt the Brits didnt want us to have guns, powder, food and housing. Is that not what we have done in every war we have been in? Was it populace gun control to bomb German war supply depots? No.
Shogun? Pls get off the subject changes
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
You may have a point, I did not read the part about our ancestors. You orgianllly said “Every RIGHT in the Bill of Rights is a direct response to British oppressions. “
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
You are dead on. And don’t forget that two days later the British Governor of Virginia Dunmore successfully seized the militia gunpowder at Williamsburg Virginia in a near identical night operation by British troops. Waaay to identical to be unrelated and effectually simultaneous in 18th century communications.
This was a move about gun control because the British understood: No gunpowder = No guns. It was a move to disarm the militia and render the populace controllable.
The proof of the plans efficacy was at Bunker Hill a month later where the British could not take the hill in two frontal assaults against the entrenched colonials. Only when they ran out of gunpowder did the Brits take the works, and then via the bayonet, which the colonials lacked.
So even if expressed in less than the slick tele-prompter King might do it, she spoke the truth. Revere and Dawes and Prescott did indeed initiate the “warning” to the Brits that we would no longer be ruled by a absentee-landlord called King George.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Read the post from Corah
“The march on Lexington and Concord was so that the British army could destroy the colonists STORE of weaponry, their stockpile not their individual deer hunting muskets. It was to try and stop the insurrection before it started by destroying their ability to supply an army. As General Gage wrote:
“You have a Draught of Concord, on which is marked the Houses, Barns, &c, which contain the above military Stores. You will order a Trunion to be knocked off each Gun, but if its found impracticable on any, they must be spiked, and the Carriages destroyed. The Powder and flower must be shook out of the Barrels into the River, the Tents burnt, Pork or Beef destroyed in the best way you can devise. And the Men may put Balls of lead in their pockets, throwing them by degrees into Ponds, Ditches &c., but no Quantity together, so that they may be recovered afterwards. If you meet any Brass Artillery, you will order their muzzles to be beat in so as to render them useless.””
It was all about getting to anything that could be used by the colonists in warfare. Not just guns. It had nothing to do with gun control no matter how hard you try and convince yourself
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Last night a Palin fan was busy reposting same comment (not Bill’s per se) explaining how she actually taught the msm a history lesson all over the internet with word “warn” written as ‘warm” with different names. I kid you not.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I seen that post. Lots of posts here with the same thing and the same assumptions. Palin meant one thing and one thing only. Gun control. Thats one of her biggies and soemthing she would not fail to get a dig in on. She had no idea the brits were coming to take guns and the peoples other supplies that could be used in war
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
You are wrong,and that is sad since you are probably imparting this propaganda to our youth.
Of course they went for cannon and other stores. Cannon were the weapon of mass destruction of the day. BTW private persons could still own cannon up to about 1935.. Oh, and that is NOT a typo. It is 1935. Private citizens even owned private warships, with cannon: they were called Privateers. Look it up.
The “Powder” Gage refers to isn’t face powder, or baby powder, it’s GUNPOWDER.
No gunpowder = no guns. Sans ammo they are clubs.
No gunpowder = no colonists shooting back.
No colonists shooting back = no rebellion
No rebellion = No United States.
Pretty simple, huh?
He with the most guns wins and the PLAN was that the only guns would be in the hands of British troops, not rowdy, rebellious, colonists.
The hand weapons, muskets or rifles, were in the colonists hands all ready. The Brits wanted the gunpowder, your own post says so. There isn’t a single mention of a long arm in your post, only the balls and powder.
Where are Gages instructions for disposal of muskets or firelocks??
Hard to believe he’d tell his troops to take the bullets and scatter them about but not mention what to do with those nasty, your terms, “deer rifles”…
Why didn’t Gage mention seizing muskets at Concord you ask? Because they weren’t stored there, the colonists had them with them already. “Citizens with arms in their hands” (Check Federalist Paper 29 on that one..)
Tell me, how did the British finally push the colonists off Breeds Hill?
What good is a musket in your hands if the government has all the ammunition and you have none?
Why did the Virginia governor successfully seize the Virginia Milia’s gunpowder two days after Lexington and Concord. Can we say PLAN to disarm the militia of the two largest and most influential states.
Do you know what a “trunion” is, or what “spiking” is without googling it?
You are clueless. Every RIGHT in the Bill of Rights is a direct response to British oppressions. To include the right to arms. Virginia wouldn’t even ratify the Constitution without those guarantees, to include the individual right to arms.
The event that sparked the American Revolutionary War was a gun control attempt by the Brits, whether you like it or not. That is simply a fact of history that your obfuscations cannot overcome.
If folks like you were the common thought in 1775 we would have never been America: the Brits would have hung the troublemakers, kept control of the ammunition, and the American Revolution would have been stillborn.
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
I think you’ve made the point that all of the historians who laughed out loud and shook their heads when they heard this have been schooled by Sarah Palin, who called Iraq our bordering allies and thought healthcare reform was in the Bush bailout. It’s not as if there is any context to her comment, right? You’re thinking if you can just prove that parts of it were accurate, then this whole thing will blow over, but the real problem is this is one of hundreds of such gaffes. Remember when she couldn’t name one founding father?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Of course the powder is gunpowder. But his wanting to take it isnt gun control. Its trying to win a war.
Yes I know what a trunion and spiking is. No one is argueing against the fact that the brits wanted the guns, powder, food and housing of the Americans. What government are you talking about having all the powder?
Its still not gun control. And sarah wasnt right.
and no not all the bill of rights are the result of the british and the Revolutionary war. And Gage DID mention the muskets that were STORED at COncord
Goodbye billy
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
The propagandists found a video they are using to try to make this OK.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
What video?
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Yeah your are right, she isn’t perfect. None of us are. Doesn’t mean she’s my choice for dog catcher either…
But then neither are people who thing there are “57 States” in the Union.
Who can’t seem to remember in some three speeches now that we are “endowed by our Creator” with certain in alienable rights. Keeps leaving that ‘by our Creator’ part out of the quote. We seem, however, to have elected him King for a term.
So while hoisting things, please avoid your own petard.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Well when you have nothing, change the subject
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Subject didn’t change… Subject was stupid pet tricks: also known as hypocracy.
Why do some people get a pass on stupid stuff, and others are condemned? It’s that old glass houses and rocks conundrum.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Np, subject changed. Obama has nothing to do with Sarah, Sarah could never do the job Obama has. No hypocracy at all. You changed the subject. Shall we now discuss the bills from the GOP that would try a woman who falls down and miscarrys for murder? You could go to C4Palin and see the same thing. People afraid to criticize Sarah so they slam Obama.
And quite frankly I could care less if he puts in the religious meanderings you want.
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Silly me, you know I JUST noticed that the dorks added that fake tricorne on Sarah’s head to ridicule her. She didn’t have it on it’s an altered photo, check out the perspective and shadows on her face.
Ha Ha Ha.. very funny. Is that the best they have for argument??
loading...
Wayne
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Please she was not even close I am a republican and I am ashamed at her idea of history 2nd amendment ? please I would rip Obama apart for such stupid statements she deserves the same good lord .. The 2nd amendment, if you are going to talk history in Boston at least know it. I am from the damn state.
loading...
scooter libby
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 1:46 am
really? “does not deserve this kind of criticism” THE FOCK SHE DOESN’T. if she was a gnarly old dude, she’d be laughed off any campaign trail in any local alaskan dog-catcher race.. but because we have a bought-out back-alley-wh0re corporate “media’ working her like kim kardashian, she’s allowed to wink-you betcha for the last 3 years without so much as a single analysis of her non-truths and ditzy-gooey rah-rah cluelessness (the rove-bots are still trying to spin the katie couric game-changing interview an evil liberal psy-op). any grade-school kid knows (at least they used to be taught) the revere’s ride was a warning about the impending arrest, not about “guns, and, y’know, stuff”. to call palin’s airheaded smirk-fest “impressionistic” is like calling a dog a primitive painter because he craps near the lawn flamingo.
loading...
Donn
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Just tryin’ to say something as dumb. How’s this:
===========
When you know the cause we like to use there could be reasons for thinking but in the mornings no one can take America because Russia is just so close and we have to be sure that no one goes hungry so why not be patient and let Clara Barton continue to make Old Glory the anthem we love and cherish at every mealtime.
===========
Maybe I should send it to Palin. It’s so easy to be as dumb as she.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:39 pm
and this?
“…he who warned, uh, the…the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms…uh, by ringin’ those bells and um…makin’ sure as he’s ridin’ his horse through town…to send those warning shots and bells…that, uh, we were gonna be secure and…and we were gonna be free…and we were gonna be armed.”
loading...
Oscar
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Actually, most people that are posting on here are just as ignorant as Sarah Palin! If everyone on here would do their homework and actually study American history, you would know that Paul Revere didnt do a damn thing! He only rode for 19 miles on horseback. He rode from Boston to Cambridge! The person who actually did make the trip on horseback, 345 miles, from Watertown to Philadelphia was named Israel Bissel. It took him a little over 4 days to complete his journey. Im not saying Sarah Palin is smart by any means, but you cant call her ignorant or stupid when your information is just as false!
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Yeah, but WE’RE not on a media-fueled bus tour promoting “Our Proud American Heritage and History”…
loading...
Figures
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Agreed none of us are touring America and telling people lies and promoting rhetoric she needs to be more informed and truthful when speaking to the public!
loading...
DaGrouch
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Get a map. 19 miles brings you out to Concord. Cambridge is right next door to Boston. The more important fact is that William Dawes and Samuel Prescott actually rode more and informed more people that the British regulars were coming than did Paul Revere. I’ve never even heard of Israel Bissel (did he invent a steam cleaner or something? I kid, I kid), probably because New York and Pennsylvania weren’t involved in the initial battles of the American Revolution. Sounds like Bissel was just part of a normal postal service ride, except that 345 miles, to a non-horse person like me, sounds like a lot for 4 days, so maybe it was some special event. In the context of the American Revolution as a whole, perhaps important. In the context of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, irrelevant. The battles were fought before he even arrived in Philly. In fact, I went ahead and did my homework just now, Israel Bissel did not ride out until AFTER the battles, as evidenced by the fact that he had casualty reports from the battles in the docket he carried.
loading...
Nasty Liberal
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I must mention, the alarm was also to protect the armories of the insurrection.
loading...
biff
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Instead of getting your info from an HBO comedy special and and using it to criticize other perhaps you should do a little research yourself. It is a lot less than 19 miles from Boston to Cambridge and he wasn’t headed there in the first place. He was headed to Lexington to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. (which I believe is mentioned in the article). A very important ride actually. He also checked that the “Sons of Liberty” had received the signals that the troops would come by sea rather than land. Also, on his trip he stopped house by house and warned them. He joined Dawes who had been sent on a different route with the same message. Oh and all of this happened the night before Israel Bissell’s ride. So, to say that “Paul Revere didn’t do a damn thing!” is to only show your own ignorance of history. Bissell’s ride was equal in importance to Revere’s but it took place a day later and was intended to alarm a larger number of people.
loading...
Oscar
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Well, seeing how I dont have HBO, I dont know to what comedy special you are talking about, so I cant debate that with you without knowing what exactly you are talking about. Also, you may want to check the maps that they used back then for your distance, rather than on google maps……pretty sure county and city lines have change just a little bit after over 200 years!
loading...
bubs
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 3:34 pm
your wrong Oscar, leave it alone.
loading...
Gerry
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Cambridge hasn’t moved…
loading...
biff
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Then you acquired your info from someone who does because the error of “19 miles” and “Boston to Cambridge” match exactly to Robert Whul’s comedy special joke which was in error of the facts just like you. But his excuse is that he is a comedian and was using it to make a comedic point.
No, Cambridge and Boston are in the same place they always were. They are only about 2 miles apart from their central location and that hasn’t changed. Any border change would only make them closer not further apart than 2 miles. So 19 miles is way off.
Instead of getting defensive you should admit you made a mistake and educate yourself especially if you feel the need to attack others on their lack of knowledge.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Has Oscar ever ridden 19 miles on a horse???
Are you debating the history of the event, or are you trying to say that Sarah Palin is really smart?
None of us is standing up in a crowd, having ridden a bus bought by a PAC, babbling like a media whore pretending to know what we are talking about – nor are any of us running/not running for office while scamming a bunch of moronic cult followers to send her $5 a week for her family paid vacation.
What we say or believe is not important. OUR credibility is not at issue.
This woman is manic right now. She babbles incoherently. There is no way her brain is working right. She thrives on chaos. She is scattered.
I don’t care who rode where on what horse or what vacuum is named after him. What I do care about is that some paranoid sociopathic narcissist thinks she is qualified to run for national office.
Attacking us for our history knowledge has nothing to do with this creature attempting to co-opt the the attention from any candidates who might be serious about running for office.
On the other hand – she’s funny as heck and the next year is going to be an absolute riot while she comes undone…
loading...
Corah
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Not so much, the roads are very similar. Ever driven in Boston? As for distance, they had surveyors back then too.
loading...
Bizu
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:29 pm
no actually.. she IS STUPID and IGNORANT and it’s sad that she panders to all of the trailer park dwelling, nascar watching, very impressionable retardicans in this country who DRINK from her stupidity… You are right in that Bissel rode 345 miles… So that Revere gets all the credit for riding 19 miles and all Bissel gets is his name stamped on the back end of a water faucet LOL
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I thought Bissel was a vacuum?
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
I thought Bissel was a comedian…
loading...
Mrs E
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:42 pm
don’t equate Nascar with this twit…the sports I watch have nothing to do with the stupidity factor of this woman or her followers
loading...
james
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Okay professor, Cambridge is next to boston, as in 0 (zero) miles away. It’s only 7 square miles, so unless he was riding in circles, you’re the clown.
loading...
Wayne
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
She is wrong to speak period about things she does not know and you are right very few know of Israel Bissel, however IMO she needs to have basic history down, at least are you smarter than a 5th grader, no bells no whistles, no 2nd admendment that is the things that bother me, Like I said in a previous post if Obama said them I would blast him too. But she needs to be called on it and she needs to say I am sorry I was wrong! That would go a long way with people, Not I mis spoke but ya know what folks I screwed up, it happens I am human, The damn politican that does that will get my vote.
loading...
Chuck
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 12:55 pm
She is almost as bright as our dumbass VP
loading...
Paul
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Sorry, Chuck, but you are wrong. Joe Biden sometimes lets his mouth get ahead of his brain, but he has the basic intelligence to notice and correct his mistakes.
Palin is simply clueless to the core.
loading...
Reynardine
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Also, Joe Biden had a brain aneurism, for which he required serious surgery. The only brain surgery Sarah requires is whatever it takes to give her one.
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Good thing he’s busy “being in charge of Congress and helping make good legislation”. LOL
loading...
Boscoe
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:15 pm
I meant the Senate… D’oh
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:17 pm
We must not forget that her tour is explicitly intended to educate Americans about our history:
This Sunday, May 29th, Governor Palin and the SarahPAC team will begin a trip through our nation’s rich historical sites, starting from Washington, DC, and going up through New England. The ‘One Nation Tour’ is part of our new campaign to educate and energize Americans about our nation’s founding principles, in order to promote the Fundamental Restoration of America.”
— Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s Web site
Given that, do any of her supporters think it might be fair or wise to ask her to get the history close enough to accurate to be called history-adjacent?
The people defending this have lowered the bar so much and proving that they know nothing of her actual record, they deserve her as President.
loading...
HippieGunNut
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:03 pm
@Sarah Jones:Remember the web site said “educate and energize Americans about our nation’s founding principles in order to promote the Fundamental Restoration of America.” This is politispeak for conservative sword rattling gearing up for 2012. Not to be confused with actual (or misunderstood) American history.
What is the modern relevance to prattling on about the “right to bare arms”? I propose two options based solely on my observations. 1) gunnuts tend to be afraid that liberals will take away their right to play with automatic weapons and/or impose ammunition shortages that are really caused by a combination of manufacturers manipulating supply and demand and paranoid, hording individuals. 2)Said prattling about 2nd amendment rights will stir up voter support from those who care or understand little else about government, much like Obama garnered a lot of support from afro-americans who didn’t fully understand his policies.
loading...
I might be a troll
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:48 pm
well, I for one will continue to wear tank tops! NO ONE is going to take away my right to “bare arms”!
loading...
Dragonpuff
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:02 pm
“much like Obama garnered a lot of support from afro-americans who didn’t fully understand his policies.”
So . . .it was just African Americans who didn’t understanfd his policies? Did just as many white people vote for McCain who didn’t understand a damned thing he was saying because he wasn’t the black man?
Hmmmm. I guess it made no difference that African Americans historically voted democratic NO MATTER what color the candidate was. A couple of percentage points more of African American voters meant just that more became registered. I hate that crap talking point as it is polite racism.
loading...
JPatrick
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 12:14 am
hippie gun nut is an oxymoron.
loading...
mmmabry
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:15 pm
I’m not sure that, in Palin-speak, “our nation’s founding principles” have much of anything to do with our nation’s history.
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 3:15 pm
I’m not sure they have anything to do with reality:-)
loading...
Wayne
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
@ sarah damn good thing she was not my teacher when I was growing up. lol. I loved history still do. hate the new versions of it but I love history, to bad Sarah Palin failed it in High School
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
It’s time that we see her college degree and transcripts, no? I am asking out of concern for my country.
loading...
Enemas for Christ
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:25 pm
The beauty of free speech is it exposes frauds like Palin.
loading...
Dick Dunavan
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 1:37 pm
PR never said “the British are coming” because at the time everyone was a British subject. He said ” the Regulars are coming” Man Republicans are fumb ducks!
loading...
History Lesson
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Your ignorant “Republican” comment aside, I do believe what he actually said was: “The REDCOATS are coming.”
loading...
Corah
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:00 am
It is unknown what exactly he said, but he most likely said something like “The regulars are coming out!”, he might have also called them the Redcoats or Lobsterbacks. At any rate he did not call them British.
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
On this point we agree. Being British himself, calling the Grenadiers and Light Infantry of the 10th Foot “British” would be oxymoronic. Last authoritative source I read put it down as “The Regulars are out.”
And while any of the riders that night probably didn’t fire guns or ring bells it is certain that some people did after getting the alarm from the riders, just as others probably ran door to door waking the populace.
The ringing of church bells, or firing of cannon, were common ways to alert the populace to attack from hostile natives, fires, or other emergencies. It was a call for the militia to assemble on the commons. How else would you call in scattered militia men to assemble in the 18th century?
loading...
jim
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 3:59 pm
I agree totally with you.
loading...
Jeremy Kareken
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:10 pm
And to be REALLY pedantic, Paul Revere never made it. Only Dr. Samuel Prescott made it to Concord. Just because Revere’s name rhymes and scans…
loading...
Rick
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:23 pm
But, if you know your history one of the reasons for the Second Amendment was so the populous could arm themselves for protection from an over reaching government. If the British had taken all the private guns then Paul Revere’s ride would be one to tell people to run and hide instead come and fight. Little known fact. One reason the Japanese were very reluctant to invade the US mainland is a Japanese Admiral who had lived in the US said they would be met by an American with a gun behind every blade of grass.
loading...
Ol' Doc
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Another possible reason the Japanese didn’t invade might be a small thing like it would have been logistically impossible! The Japanese were hoping to catch US carriers in port and force the US to the negotiating table, in hopes of lifting the embargo. They were well aware when they missed the carriers they were in trouble, and an invasion was completely out of the question.
loading...
George
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:11 pm
That’s not even close to the reason why the japanese didn’t invade mainland usa…
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:48 pm
The Japanese fought in the Revolutionary War???? Can Palin see Japan from her slab on Lake Lucille?
loading...
Wayne
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Of course they did I remember in my history books Dawson riding down the streets of Concord yelling Tito is coming Tito is coming LMAO
loading...
esther clark
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Not to mention that weird syntax. “he who warned the british..”
What the hell is she talking about. He didn’t warn the British about nuttin’
Listening to her talk makes my head hurt.
loading...
scott
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Maybe it’s changed since I was in Boston in 2007, but at that time, the battles of Lexington & Concord were primarily about confiscating the weapons stores in Concord. They were looking to make the arrests as noted, but folks in Minuteman National Park said the real worry was two cannons the militia did not want taken away by the army. I don’t remember the “shot heard around the world” coming as the result of an attempted arrest. So, to me, Palin’s argument about grabbing weapons is mostly correct even if she’s not capable of expressing her thoughts more clearly.
loading...
Pays Attention
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:09 pm
For the record you are correct. The Revolutionary War started when the British troops were marching under orders to secure the weapons believed to be in Concord. The minutemen gathered in Concord in numbers the British were in no way prepared for and we had ourselves a nice little revolution. Congrats for actually knowing U.S. history.
loading...
Wayne
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
you are exactly right and it did involve weapons or gunpowder stores in Concord. But what has this Republican so upset is she is flirting with being president. I would expect someone like that to ” express their thoughts more clearly” I would also expect them to have an Idea of when the 2nd amendment was ratified. I want my president to speak with a bit of intelligence, Obama a smart man was able to whip crowds up with talk are we really any better off? You cant have a cheer leader in charge, we need a Commander in charge
loading...
Will
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Considering that this country has had a deplorable lack of interest in its own history, is it any wonder that someone has to call our attention to mistakes made by politicians? Remember that we once had a man in politics that didn’t know when Pearl Harbor Day was. There have been so many mistakes in the political arena, that I might tend to support the idea of all politicians being required to pass the test given to immigrants. Then we could see if any of them know enough about our country to actually ‘run’ it. Hopefully, someone in the political spectrum would be ‘smarter than a fifth grader’, but it is becoming more and more doubtful.
loading...
Abe Gurko
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Sarah Palin does it again! Rather than clam up to a press question, one that she clearly does not know the answer to, she opts to put her foot in her mouth and garbles this nonsense. http://bit.ly/iylSou
Besides, doesn’t she know that Paul Revere AND his Raiders were actually best known for the song “KICKS”?
loading...
Steven
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:02 pm
It’s those pesky lame stream media who keep asking those gotcha questions.
loading...
Corah
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Sad thing is she probably sat through the talk at the Church too and still didn’t remember anything about it.
loading...
fudo myoo
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:17 pm
the very least that vapid CNN talking head in makeup and a dress could have done is ACTUALLY POINT OUT SARAH GOT IT WRONG!
sorry, but a wink and a nod is far too subtle – how about, “no, we checked a couple history books, a few authentic historical records, some accounts of the events made at the time, and, sorry, Sarah, most 3rd graders know that’s not what happened.”
KEEP GIVING HER A PASS ON MAKING SHIT UP AND SHE CONTINUES TO BE CREDIBLE
loading...
Steve Ford
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Sarah Palin is an idiot who should be moving furniture or installing carpet or washing cars or waiting tables or parking cars.
The woman has the brain of 7th grader (no offense to 7th graders).
Why the media covers this woman is beyond me. Let Roger Ailes and FOX deal with her stupidity.
loading...
Basheert
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:50 pm
You want this dimwitted freak to have a hammer and nails??? What ARE you thinking???
A 7th grader? I will take issue with that. She has the brain of a 3 year old toddler who acts up for attention.
loading...
red
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:44 pm
I guess all of you are too stupid to realize that the right to bears arms was common right of all Englishmen at the time. Most of the rights enumerated in the constitution where simply common law free Englishmen rights of that age.
loading...
Dale
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:55 pm
I try to be generous, but really, this woman has no real knowledge of American history! Or much knowledge of anything else really! And people CLAMOR to elect this idiot!!! It must be the Iced Tea party, suffering from permanent brain freeze!!
loading...
Dale
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 4:56 pm
what a maroon!
loading...
Claritas
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:18 pm
I betcha Sarah knows how many states there are in the USA.
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Yes, goodness, you got him! Let’s give Palin the crown because while she might think America “borders” Iraq, and that we are allies with North Korea, and that Africa is a country, and that healthcare was part of the bail out, she has never said 57 states, and can’t we all see how the one is a verbal misstep and the others are only things evil liberals care about?
loading...
Bill H
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:49 pm
I bet Sarah knows what year it is.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:00 pm
wow~! I bet she knows what year she quit as governor too!
loading...
Sarah Jones
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Does she know what year it was when she dragged McCain to a staggering loss? Or the year she had a recall started against her as mayor? Or the year she violated the campaign laws in doing an ad with the RGA? Or the years she was found guilty of violating ethics laws? Just wondering if we’re still playing the same game.
loading...
MikeSilver
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:36 pm
You may want to check your history. The reason British General Gage was moving to Concord was to confiscate Colonist’s PRIVATELY OWNED arms. Hancock and Adams were certainly wanted by the British but that wasn’t the reason the troops were heading to Concord and Lexington.
Here’s a quote from Gen. Gage’s orders that initiated the troop movement:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=864
“you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever..”
Here’s a quote from British Lieutenant Colonel Smith’s After Action Report:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=868
“In the obedience to your Excellency’s commands, I marched on the evening of the 18th inst. with the corps of grenadiers and light infantry for Concord, to execute your Excellency’s orders with respect to destroying all ammunition, artillery, tents, &c, collected there.”
In the British military’s own words, they moved on Concord and Lexington to confiscate the arms of the Americans, not to capture Hancock and Adams. The first battle of the Revolution was fought over gun rights.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 6:20 pm
No, it was not fought over the right to bear arms. It was to take an enemies supplys which included more than guns. At no time was anyone told they couldnt have guns
loading...
Bill H
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:48 pm
A gun without powder and shot (which is what was stored at Concord and was what the British were out to seize) is not really a gun at all. It is a club or a walking stick or a door stop.
loading...
Owen
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Why don’t you include more of Gage’s order?
“You have a Draught of Concord, on which is marked the Houses, Barns, &c, which contain the above military Stores. You will order a Trunion to be knocked off each Gun, but if its found impracticable on any, they must be spiked, and the Carriages destroyed. The Powder and flower must be shook out of the Barrels into the River, the Tents burnt, Pork or Beef destroyed in the best way you can devise. And the Men may put Balls of lead in their pockets, throwing them by degrees into Ponds, Ditches &c., but no Quantity together, so that they may be recovered afterwards. If you meet any Brass Artillery, you will order their muzzles to be beat in so as to render them useless.”
The object was to destroy the cannon and not small arms. Any small arms were not destroyed, only the store of musket balls thrown in the pond (which the colonists did recover later).
loading...
Bill Liddell
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
The main goal was the gunpowder. No gunpowder = no guns. Of course they wanted the rest too, but they could miss the cannon, and even stacked muskets, but if they destroyed the gunpowder they rendered the all the muskets and cannon in militia hands worthless. Disaarm the people,and you take the teeth out of the rebellion.
Bunker Hill demonstrates this as the Brits couldn’t take the hill until the Americans ran out of powder. The Brits took it on the 3rd charge with a bayonet assault.
“The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium [guarantee] of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”–Justice Joseph Story, 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1890, p. 746-747.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
All that is not only boring, its simple logic that a 2 year old could figure out. And your quote from much later is meaningless as the quote refers to gun ownership and resistance against ones own government, not war. Not to actions taken during a war to try and stymie the other sides ability to wage war.
And worse, you have no idea what the main goal was. The generals orders were guns, gunpowder, food and housing methods such as tents. No where did he say get the gunpowder first and thats the goal. You are saying it so much you are convincing yourself.
You are being silly. Cut it out
loading...
Ben Dare Dundat
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 5:42 pm
she has Manson Lamps and will eat your brain
she’s less focused and real than the bag woman
down the street. I will rephrase that, she IS a bag woman
in the political sense. She is less focused and real
than the shopping cart woman down the street, who sits
counting her pennies and talking to unseen things.
loading...
Donald L. Vasicek
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Sarah Palin should go on stage with her act. I’m sure you get a steady HBO series. It could be called Sarah Palin, Wannabe Without the Brain.
loading...
Bill H
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Palin never said the words “Second Amendment” in the video you linked to or in the blurb you quoted so your use of it in the title of this piece is a canard you just made up. The 1775 versus 1787 reference is using a false argument to gin up a false accusation.
Palin knows the history of this better than the author of this piece. As a matter of historical fact and constitutional history one cannot separate Revere, Lexington, Concord from the militia’s refusal to allow the British army to infringe their right to keep and bear arms. That ring a bell?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:57 pm
At that time there was no documented right to bear arms. Sarah mislead you. She didnt have to say the words 2nd amendment, she refers to it almost every time she opens her maw
loading...
Corah
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:10 am
The march on Lexington and Concord was so that the British army could destroy the colonists STORE of weaponry, their stockpile not their individual deer hunting muskets. It was to try and stop the insurrection before it started by destroying their ability to supply an army. As General Gage wrote:
“You have a Draught of Concord, on which is marked the Houses, Barns, &c, which contain the above military Stores. You will order a Trunion to be knocked off each Gun, but if its found impracticable on any, they must be spiked, and the Carriages destroyed. The Powder and flower must be shook out of the Barrels into the River, the Tents burnt, Pork or Beef destroyed in the best way you can devise. And the Men may put Balls of lead in their pockets, throwing them by degrees into Ponds, Ditches &c., but no Quantity together, so that they may be recovered afterwards. If you meet any Brass Artillery, you will order their muzzles to be beat in so as to render them useless.”
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:20 am
Good post. There is a big difference between what many say here that this was all about guns. It was about any supply that could be used in warfare or resistance including food.
loading...
GAH
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:52 pm
The criticism here regarding the time line of the second amendment and the constitutional convention is absurd. The entire Bill of Rights was written as a direct rebellion of the tyrannies imposed on the colonists by the British Crown. The attempt to disarm Massachusetts was a direct precursor to the 2nd Ammendment as were the rest of the police state tactics attempting to quell disagreement, antagonism and subversion of the ultimate power of the sitting government. The entire premise of the Revolution and subsequent establishment of the Republic was to limit the power of government and allow people to rise to the greatest potential through hard work, calculated risk, leadership and serial success, failure, recovery as well as self-responsibility for one’s actions and decisions and charity (not government subsidy) to those less fortunate.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 7:59 pm
No, the forthcoming attack was not the precursor to the 2nd amendment. The second came about that all citizens at that time had to bear guns to protect themselves at a moments notice. The 2nd could very well have been taken out of the Amendments within 50 years as it was no longer necessary
loading...
Pays Attention
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:21 pm
So 50 year after the revolution all danger of a Government becoming overbearing and oppressive was eliminated? Who waved a magic wand and made that happen? We were left arms as a basic human right to protect ourselves from OUR government, be it the king or the new Republic. Research history, read the United States Constitution as well as federalist papers and the Declaration of Independence. The is a land founded on individual liberty and minimal government intervention in our lives and in the world. Jefferson would have expected us to revolt again quite some time ago and said as much.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:25 pm
50 years could be objective. And no, an armed citizenship would last about 15 minutes against the government. The right to bear arms, while I am not requiring it be taken away, is literally useless for the needs you say its there for. As for hunting or sport shooting etc is is useful.
The fight against the government is the NRA cry to keep its guns(which no one is attempting to take away in the first place). You have obviously bought into it.
loading...
Pays Attention
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:27 pm
I hadn’t commented on it’s effectiveness against a standing force or against the technological advances that have complicated the matter since that time. I simply stated what it was there for and if you read history instead of buying into revisionist nonsense you would have a better informed position to come from.
My apologies to disappoint you further but I am no supporter of the NRA. I have simply spent most of my life in the Boston area and have a special passion for the founding of this country. Go back and read what they did and why they did it in their own words. It is inspiring and will give you a greater respect for this great country we have been left.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:40 pm
You are no disappointment. Nor did I say you were a member of the NRA. But when you say we have the right to bear arms to protect us from the government, you cant be saying the government will come after you one at a time. The 2nd amendment in my opinion is absolutely useless today in the terms that you talk about it(protecting us from the government). I am a gun owner myself although I no longer hunt. The 2nd is there strictly for the sportsman and the hunter. Its also there for people who have no business to own guns, owning guns. The whacks that arm themselves to the teeth becuase someone is coming for their guns
Additionally I am not trying to argue this, just discussing my opinion of the 2nd as some people see it
loading...
Bob W
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Palin is unbelievably stupid.
loading...
CA
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:34 pm
It is sad that so much energy is wasted on piddly things like this… Why doesn’t everyone who has time to leave comments on these types of articles put it to better use? There are hungry people to feed at the Salvation Army and they need volunteers, and there are tornado-damaged homes to rebuild in Joplin, MO, and Springfield, Mass and Alabama… Read a book of Paul Revere’s ride if you feel you must get your facts straight, but don’t waste your time on Palin’s gaffe. Politicians put their feet in their mouths all the time. Effective ones actually do something to better their fellow countrymen’s lives.
loading...
stf
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:45 pm
I just can’t wait to hear how the Right comes to her defense. That’s almost as much fun as watching Miss Quittin’ herself. Someone should do a picture book of Bachman, Palin and the Right’s understanding of American history. I’m sure Marvel would love to publish it.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Wow, lots of info on Paul Revere here. Some contradictory. What gets left behind in the historical debate, which many folks either did some good research, or just remembered well . . . . .is did you all actually watch Sarah Palin when she was making these statements? It really did remind me of the Katie Couric “what do you read” question. She just seemed to be sputtering and saying whatever came to her mind. No matter what the historical facts, what she said was nothing taught in your everyday middle school history class regarding Paul Revere. It really seemed like a bunch of rambling. The woman doesn’t seem to understand the mantra of “if you don’t have something “good” to say . . ..say nothing”. (OK . . . usually that quote is not used in this manner, but substitute “good” with “know what you are talking about”.
loading...
Jordan
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Paul revere did warn several british officers that the colonists were reacting and mad as hell about the british “intrusion”, saying that 500 colonists would be arriving within an hour to resist… But let’s ignore real history…
P.s. When she said 2nd amendment rights, she meant the principle of owning arms, not the physical amendment. The physical point of the ride was to warn of the imminent arrests, but it was about the right to assemble and, the 2nd amendment’s principle, to organize a militia and own personal arms, that the british has tried
loading...
Jordan
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Paul revere did warn several british officers that the colonists were reacting and mad as hell about the british “intrusion”, saying that 500 colonists would be arriving within an hour to resist… But let’s ignore real history…
P.s. When she said 2nd amendment rights, she meant the principle of owning arms, not the physical amendment. The physical point of the ride was to warn of the imminent arrests, but it was about the right to assemble and, the 2nd amendment’s principle, to organize a militia and own personal arms, that the british had tried to confiscate. But again, let’s ignore that too.
loading...
Shawn C
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Palin was not talking specifically about the 2nd amendment, but instead of the broader topic of the right to bear arms in general, to say she did is simply dishonest.
Secondly anyone who does not think Paul Revere rode in large part to warn that the British troops were advancing with the intent to disarm the patriots and capture their powder storage is ignorant of the historical facts and unbelievably stupid for pretending like they know the history of the time.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:25 pm
No one is refuting why they brits were coming. Its just that we know Sarah had no idea thats why the brits were coming.
loading...
Shawn C
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Not accurate the article and many of the posters are clearly stating the Brits were not coming to confiscate the patriots arms as Palin stated. I’m not going to pretend to be able to read another person’s mind to divine that she meant something other than what she said. The fact remains what she said is completely historically accurate and it is hilarious that like a line of lemmings people are calling her “stupid” when in fact she is right. I just find irony funny.
loading...
Shawn C
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:21 pm
I think the horribly ironic thing is that Palin is historically correct in her statement and lemmings keep piling on calling her wrong.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:27 pm
She may be correct, but its out of luck. Everyone knows she was talking about the 2nd and she had no idea of why the brits were coming. Barely a speech goes by that she doesnt mention the 2nd and thats exactly what she was doing in this vid
loading...
Shawn C
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Once again…What she actually said is historically accurate, and yet the lemmings lined up here thinking they were ridiculing here by saying she was wrong…oops… You may want to to play mind reader and assume she meant to say something else, but the fact remains she did not.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Shawn . . . .what did she say that was correct other than Paul Revere’s name. As I recently posted, what was all that talk about “bells, Paul Revere shooting, and warning the British?? I was just watching her knowing that most Conservatives must be saying . . . please stop . . .while most Liberals were saying . . . . .keep going.
loading...
Shawn C
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Well factually, if you know Paul Revere’s own writings on that night he warned British officers that there troops should not advance as 500 armed patriots were waiting for them. Revere was bluffing in order to stop the British regulars from advancing their attempt to capture the patriots arms and powder storage, but factually he did warn British officers that night not to attack.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Again folks, watch her answering the question and forget about Blog transcripts of her reply. She says Revere had bells and was shooting to warn the British . . . not to warn the Colonialists. Just watch her closely as she answers. To me the only thing she truly seemed to know as fact was Paul Revere’s name. Everything else was vague recollection and ad-libbing.
loading...
Shawn C
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 11:44 pm
So when Paul Revere wrote in his own words that he warned British officers they should not attack that night was he wrong or do you just remember it more clearly than he did? ;)
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 7:18 am
Shawn, I said the only thing “she truly seemed to know . .” and not the “only thing folks researching the Blog or diving into Paul Revere’s transcripts can prove to be actually somewhat accurate”.
You can go back and parse her words and write on blogs to make them accurate – that’s fine. But I saw someone blustering through an answer, and I’ll stand by my guns . . . the only thing she seemed to be 100% sure of was his name – the rest sort of spewed out.
loading...
Matt
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:03 am
She had just been on a tour that talked about Revere’s ride, dufus. The church bells were part of a prearranged warning system to alert the militia that the British were coming to sieze the armories.
That is what I learned in 5th grade, what did you learn?
loading...
Shawn C
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:05 am
I will certainly agree she stumbled through that sentence seeming to only half pay attention to the reporter…I’m really not defending her. My point is irony… I simply find it quite ironic that the lemmings are coming out and calling her names about how wrong she is when in fact whether intentionally or accidentally her facts are more correct than many calling her stupid. In other words, if the microphone was in front of most of the people saying she was an idiot it appears most of the arrogant critics don’t know the historical facts either.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Got it! I’ll admit, Mrs. Palin frustrates me with her non-stop negative dialogue. She may have many good ideas, but everytime I see her speaking (and that’s quite a bit)her approach IMO is to try and ridicule the current Admin. Hey, politics can often (always?) be pretty dirty. But to me, the true innovators are those who create an atmosphere of the great things that can be done, instead of simply trying to trash what is being done.
loading...
Michael McDonald
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 11:25 pm
The woman may be a quitter but she IS NOT brainless. She continues to make a mad dash to her bank with healthy amounts of cash. It continues to be unfortunate that those who are in control of our country respect people who know how to connive more than they respect people who know how to work. Don’t be fooled, Mrs. Palin certainly knows how to connive.
loading...
ShoreBudMike
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Wait a minute… she never heard the famous quote attributed to Paul Revere, “The British are coming!!”? Why would he (or anyone) shout a warning… to the British (in her version) that the British were coming?
It’s OK to forget facts now and then, but when you’ve got the cameras and microphones of every media outlet in your face, if you’re not absolutely sure of the facts, keep yer freaking yap shut.
This lampshade of a person… who rides in a bus bearing her name in four-foot-high lettering… says “it’s not about me.”
Save some oxygen for those of us who actually think.
Where’s my can of Bullshit Repellant?
loading...
Shawn C
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 12:06 am
First Paul Revere never said “The British is coming” that is a mostly fictitious poem and not historically accurate…if you read Revere’s own writings on that night his actual message to the patriots was that the “Regulars were coming”. He would not say “British” as most of the colonists still considered themselves British…Second in Revere’s own writings he makes it clear he did indeed warn the British that night not to attack as he attempted to bluff them into thinking 500 armed colonists were waiting for them.
Kind of ironic you stated “if you’re not absolutely sure of the facts, keep yer freaking yap shut.”
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 7:13 am
Shawn . . ..Do you truly think that Sarah Palin read Paul Revere’s own writings where you “indicate” he wrote he warned the British?? Again, you are truly trying to make this an in depth historical conversation . . . . when that’s not the true point. I’ll make a huge assumption and say we all know Palin was trying to recall vague memories “about the midnight ride of Paul Revere . . ” and she just kept blurting out info as flashbacks popped in her head. You can try and make her the into the expert of what actually occurred in Boston during that time period . . . .but she’ll soon have you researching another piece of American History when she brutalizes it again in the near future.
loading...
Shawn C
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:17 am
I don’t know if she read Paul Revere’s writings. I have read that she just came out of a tour speaking on the subject, and any good tour guide would have pointed out lesser known facts like Paul Revere’s attempt to warn the British off of their attack. She may have simply butchered repeating a new fact she had just learned that most don’t know. Or she simply could have misspoke.
Again, not really defending here half paying attention reply to the question…Just having fun with how little many making fun of her actually know about the incident. When you belittle someone else for supposedly being “factually wrong” and then state the historical facts wrong, I find it entertaining.
I suppose what got me started is the initial blog post was so wildly wrong about Revere’s ride not being a reaction to the British regulars moving to take the colonists arms away…that is exactly what those riders were riding for that night, and to say otherwise is simply naively misinformed or dishonest.
loading...
Douglas
Jun. 3rd, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Facts aside, just look at the transcription of what she said. I’m afraid she can’t string a coherent sentence together unless it is written out for her beforehand. And don’t tell me about being “put on the spot” or “having to improvise”. If you are aspiring to any public office, you should be able to speak in complete sentences without becoming confused halfway through.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 7:00 am
Douglas,
I agree and that is what I’m trying to bring out. Shawn is trying to bring me into the Historical Truth debate where folks are going back and forth. She was just doing her best to get by the question. Most of us have seen her answer questions enough time and “I think” you can tell when she just goes on without real knowledge of the subject.
loading...
Larry Grossman
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 12:23 am
The Americans are Coming The Americans are Coming. Don’t let the Americans deprive you of your 2nd Amendment Rights. Thus did the British pull up their sleeves and raise their muskets and AK-47s to defend their rights as British citizens to bare their arms.
loading...
Tina Anderson
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 12:56 am
Par for the course for an airhead, showoff like Palin. She has all the substance of a marshmallow and even less in the brain cell department!
loading...
1630 Bostonian
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 1:13 am
A dozen or so men rode that night. They knew that Concord was the target, men came on foot all night to engage the “REDCOATS” in the morning. There where no cannon. Gen. Knox had to pull them from Ticoderoga later to secure Boston harbor. Go invent your own history.
As for gun rights, I don’t need them for protection as I live in the 48th state and have built mote and bailey to protect me from liberal hubris…watch for gators!
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 1:28 am
Do you protect your wife’s uterus from the republican hubris? Dont let her have a miscarriage, the GOP will be on her in a heartbeat
loading...
TlalocW
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 1:35 am
Did you hear how high her voice got during the “riding his horse through town,” part? She knew she had dug herself into another, “Look at me and my blatant stupidity,” hole. Seriously, sit this woman down in front of the television and force her to watch, “Schoolhouse Rock.” I’m going to give her a HUGE benefit of the doubt and assume she knows most of her times tables and can skip, “Multiplication Rock,” but “America Rock,” “Grammar Rock,” and “Science Rock,” are all required viewing for her because not only did she get Paul Revere wrong, but she talked about, “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World,” took place in New Hampshire while she was there, going as far to say Lexington and Concord were in the Granite State.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 7:05 am
Yes!! Again that is what I’m pointing out!!! Shawn and others seem to be diverting from what I believe many sensed when they watched her answer the question, and I have quite seen it a few times . .. . .it seems like she was mixing things in and just trying to make a pitch. She could have said something like it’s great to be in the hometown of Patriots such as Paul Revere, John Adams . . and left it at that. But she just can’t stop from continuing on to try and prove some political point.
loading...
David G B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 8:37 am
How does all this controversy make Sarah Palin a person likely to unify and lead American citizens?
loading...
Justin Case
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 9:57 am
The comments here twisting Palin’s words around in an attempt to defend her are even more pathetic than her words themselves.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:45 am
JC . . . .I think she needs a few more of these bloggers around her to whisper in her ear or an ear-mike.
loading...
Ivyfree
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Speaking as a usually good-natured critic from the left, I understand perfectly that Sarah’s gaffes aren’t individual events. Sarah has a near-complete ignorance of history, as well as the Constitution- and I’m not mentioning the many other things she’s completely ignorant of, including basic honesty. And yet, some people are fascinated with her winkin’ and grinnin’ and the D cups she straps on occasionlly, and want to vote for her.
We’ve already had the extremely ignorant and pseud-religious governor of a large state as President, and that didn’t work out so well. We don’t need to do it again.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:21 am
OK . . . I can’t resist, and I do try to stay respectful and rational in these debates . . . .but with ex Gov. Palin it is often “Open mouth . ..emit gaffe”. Unfortunately I can’t say “insert foot” because too often many out there want to believe everything she says.
loading...
miguel rey
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:59 am
LOL– The Palin supporters sound like proud parents trying to defend their bumbling 3rd grader’s account of Paul Reveres ride durring show and tell. Here’s the problem, she obviously had very little idea about this historical even and it shows in the video, plain and simple. I would love to see the video when her daughter corrected her.
loading...
Raj
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Like mother like daughter. The daughter will know more about dancing, flirting and producing babies( even as teenage & unwed ) rather than Country’s heritage!
Why must the media go crazy over a bumbling up-start? She deserted Alaska when the people gave her a job!
loading...
bruce baker
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Let’s put it in perspective … both Swami Obami and slip of the lip Biden each have gaffed more that Palin … funny how that didn’t make the article, eh?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Thats not perspective, thats changing the subject
loading...
NCVet2005
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Exactly. It is idiocy like Paul Revere defending 2nd Amendment rights that didn’t exist and firing shots during his “secret” mission that made voters think, “If McCain croaks…she will be president..she who thinks she’ll see the 2nd coming of Christ during her lifetime…ummmm…we need a change!” A Black man named Hussein easily and overwhelmingly beat her “watch out for the boogey man” ticket. Let her stay home gazing at Russia from her picture window while her gandkids ask her about when she fought grizzly bears on the moon with Buzz Lightyear.
loading...
RayMM
Jun. 11th, 2011 at 2:44 am
You’re the idiot. Everyone pretty much knows that the U.S. Constitution did not exist at the time because WE WERE NOT A COUNTRY. But being citizens of Great Britain, colonists had the right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights of 1688. The British tried to take this away, and this was one reason Paul Revere made his ride to warn people. Before you and the stupid liberal media goes and criticizes Palin for this, do some history learning for yourself.
loading...
Mekhong Kurt
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
@bruce baker, as @Shivia points out, you aren’t offering perspective, but changing the subject. That is, dodging the issue.
As for a numerical scorecard comparing the number of verbal gaffes made by the three people you named — I don’t know. I *do* know that in this instance, Palin came out swinging — no surprise there — and insisted she was correct. I guess the underlying principle there is “in for a dime, in for a dollar.”
In contrast, when President Obama mistakenly referred to 57 states, he addressed his gaffe at another campaign stop — but he did NOT defend his obviously incorrect number.
Ms. Palin reminds me of a lady in a particular joke, a city-born and -raised one who married into a rural family. Her turn to host the extended family Thanksgiving meal came that very year, soon after her marriage. She had bought several turkeys from the local butcher, and when she served them, one of her husband’s uncles teased her, asking her where the rest of the turkey legs were. Puzzled, she asked what he meant, so he kindly explained that turkeys have *four* legs.
Indignant, she went to the butcher’s shop the next day and berated her for taking advantage of her lack of knowledge to cheat her out of two legs per turkey. Bemused, the butcher asked her if a particular uncle had told her that turkeys have four legs. She nodded in the affirmative, so the butcher gently set her straight, explaining that the uncle was known far and wide for his love of pulling people’s legs (appropriately enough, given the story!).
Now the poor lass was doubly flustered. Determined to salvage what scraps of dignity she could from the humiliating affair, she blurted out, “Of COURSE!!! *I* know that turkeys have only two legs — I was thinking of CHICKENS!!!”
*That* would be a classic Palin comeback. . . .
loading...
mf
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Brilliant!!!
loading...
Leonard
Jun. 8th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
All of you may want to check your facts, NPR recently did just that. Most would consider their organization a bastion of the left and the left would argue they are balanced and fair. Why is it in their research and discussions with history experts did they find that Palin’s account was indeed correct. Of course her reference to the 2nd amendment was not literal, it was her connecting the ideology which was in our collective beliefs at the time to what soon thereafter became the 2nd amendment rights bestowed by the same people of that time. Don’t believe me, here is the article link over on NPR, http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere
My suggestion is for everyone to keep more of an open mind, all politicians make gaffes, that is the nature of being in the spotlight 24/7 but very often we are too quick to judge because it reinforces our own beliefs in what we had always been taught or how we want to perceive people. Lighten up, she is not the idiot the left likes to paint her as and she is not the savior of all creation the right promotes her as. The right should not fall into the trap that the left fell into with Obama. He was a smart guy with a lot of charisma but he is woefully under prepared and less than experienced for the job that we put him in. The left just got caught up and forgot to use their heads and actually analyze his skill set. The right needs to avoid this with Palin. Maybe she is qualified to be a presidential option and maybe she is not. Everyone should focus in on the skills a qualifications of each candidate and think for themselves. Avoid all the hype and realize the gaffes are part of being human. In this case she appears to be more right than wrong. Good luck to America on the next election, as we have a lot of problems to get fixed no matter who the next president is.
Personally
loading...
Marconi Darwin
Jun. 9th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
You have opened my eyes! I now understand that Palin was right.
Paul Revere on the other hand, was wrong.
loading...
Leonard
Jun. 9th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
The info in the link is from a conversation with a Professor of History at a Boston University. I am not sure what your specialty is but his is focused on the history of that area. He is specifically referencing information written by Paul Revere himself so no they are both correct in their statements. I was surprised by the information as well when it all came to light because i was terribly under informed about the specifics of the event. I thought that she had misspoke but then I decided to read up and listen to what was coming out about this as opposed to predetermining that the woman is an idiot, and yucking it up like some elitist snob patting myself on the back as if calling someone else dumb made me smarter. If you care to hate someone over this or whatever reason that is your business but don’t make a snarky off hand comment as if you are right on the issue.
I am not trying to imply that she spoke eloquently on the topic but according to the experts she was accurate in her statements regarding the purpose of his ride that night.
If the goal is just to tear someone apart over any issue right or wrong and not focus on the true issues or a persons qualities then by all means knock yourself out. Rather if the goal is to review the facts and discuss/debate the actual issues than the country and all of us Americans might have a chance for civil discourse and the improvement of this place we choose to live. I am not a win at all costs person whose desire is to tear apart the opposition, I am opposed to several things the current administration has done and stands for but Obama is my president and I still will show him respect and wish for him to succeed so that America succeeds.
Please work toward a normal conversation and take the time to think for yourself. One liners may be funny in this anonymous world of bloggers and tweeters but it doesn’t help in any way toward solutions and only proves to divide us in meaninless ways.
Good luck to you.
loading...
Reynardine
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 11:22 am
Remember when we thought the Reagan administration were the meanest, dumbest Fox the political system could possibly produce? Welll…
loading...
boshspong
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Compared to W/Cheney Reagan was quite mild, the worst about Reagan was that he managed to shift the values of the entire nation – from Caring for our own, being responsible stewards of our environment and promoting democracy and freedom to placing profits and making money.
We can plainly see where those shortsighted greedy values have done to the nation and the world since then.
loading...
Briane McLoone
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
What on earth are you talking about?
If I look up “stupid” in the dictionary, I’m sure I’ll find your picture!
loading...
Bob Olivarez
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 1:11 am
Case in point.
loading...
norther
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
??? Let’s make some sense now folks
loading...
Focalpoint
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 2:29 am
You are 100% correct. The man turned greed into a value. I am still mourning America.
loading...
norther
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
And where has those of Obama gotten us?
loading...
mf
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
If you did your homework you would know he is still digging us out of the “W” hole. Trying to put the safe guards back in place that created the middle class after FDR and WWII, and have since crashed due to deregulation and tax cuts for the top 1%. (Although he screwed that one by continuing them)HEALTH REFORM which will save money and lives! Health should not be for profit. “Insurance Co’s” are the ones telling you and your DR. that you can’t have things because it cuts into their profits. That’s what President Obama has been doing … the list is long if you cared to educate yourself.
loading...
Paul
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Then Why has Obama’s administration given out so many Waivers to his pals’ businesses, exempting them from his Healthcare plan?
Maybe all of Congress should also be obligated to get their Healthcare coverage under His plan.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
His pals? This is a new plan. My gf company has a waiver and as a result she got better insurance. These waivers will be gone after the plan is in full effect
You dont have a clue what the plan is do you? You think the government is selling insurance? Congress is getting health insurance under his plan, its called keep the insurance that you had before the plan unless your employer drops it
His plan. Thats too funny
loading...
Marconi Darwin
Jun. 9th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Yes, waivers. They have everything to do with why Palin thinks Revere rang bells, and fired warning shots.
While riding a horse.
And carrying front-loading muskets.
Again, what did Palin say about the waivers?
loading...
misanthropope
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
reagan “accomplished” what he did in a culture where graft was not yet the official national religion. he was the John, Jesus, and Peter of that religion, the most influential in the world today.
loading...
wonderYrednow
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
St. Raygun was anything butt!
loading...
Peter
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 5:18 am
Let’s not forget, Reagan is also directly to thank for the fact that the U.S. is the sole industrial power not using the metric system, the U.S. is the only industrial power using 110V electricity, and ketchup is legally a vegetable for purposes of ‘balanced school lunches,’ among many other stupid reversals of programs instituted by the Carter administration whose values seemed unimportant or minor at the time, but would have the U.S. in a completely different economic and leadership position now, had they been kept in place.
Of course, Reagonistas deny this, pointing to the huge success that was (not) ‘trickle-down economics,’ another of Reagan’s voo-doo theories that left the nation buggered.
loading...
Gerbleschmitz
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
110v huh what? Is Japan chopped liver?
loading...
CDB
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
No, ketchup is not a vegetable in a school lunch. Yes, Reagan proposed it, but it did not pass. Please don’t pass on disinformation about the school lunch program, it already gets slammed enough as it is.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Buit on the bright side, Ketchup is very good for you
loading...
SarahStupid
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 11:39 am
Sarah Screechy could not be more stupid or embarrassing. What an idiot! And that insufferable screechy voice that she raises up and down when she starts with the uh, um, (insert buzz word like guns or patriot or freedom) uh, um, (insert word ending in ing but say it as ‘in like a dumb hillbilly.) What an idiot!
loading...
Diane
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
The fact that this ignorant person is even considered a serious presidential candidate is very, very scary! I hope that by having Bush in the White House for four years, that the country has learned the danger of having a dumb person as President of the United States.
loading...
Eric
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Bush was in the White House for 8 years…not 4. Of course you could wiggle your way out of this by saying that you were talking about his father, but I highly doubt it.
loading...
Sean
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Well, 4 years in the White House, and 4 years in La-La Land. You can spin in many ways
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Now that got me to actually LOL . . .or COL (Chuckle)
loading...
Tyson
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
I can’t STAND Sarah Palin, but she is like 40% correct. Paul did not shoot shots and went quitely and swiftly in the night to alert Adams, Hancock and generally spread the word that the Regulars were out. However, they were indeed attacking the right to keep arms. The regulars were marching to Concord & Lexington to confiscate gun powder and lead ball shot from the town store (as in storage location). That being said, Nuts to Sarah Palin.
RON PAUL 2012!!!
loading...
Harmony
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
That’s not attacking the right to bear arms because it wasn’t a right yet.
loading...
wonderYrednow
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
So it started out ‘left’ and turned out ‘wrong’?
No, it started out LEFT and the ‘Right’ made it ‘WRONG’ !
loading...
bruce baker
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Wolves, mountain lions, Bears, and you think people didn’t have a right to bear arms? Some people were armed to the teeth to travel between towns that today are connected by sprawling suburbs. You people have no clue how wild the world back then in the 1700s really was, do ya?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
I think there is a difference between the “right” to carry arms that the constitution gives you, and the fact that people back then naturally carried arms. Lets not forget that some colonys clamped down on arms at various times as well.
loading...
Steven
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
The constitution merely formalized what many believed to be inherant rights on the American people. These rights, whether written or commonly assumed were being ignored and challenged by the British, Palin was correct in this matter. Concerning the noise… Well, Paul Revere did write that there were bells going off and gunshots being fired when the British captured him. I guess Palin was right again.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
A right is not a right until it is given. Up till that time everyone had carried guns all over Europe and Britian, but no one ever had the express right in the US(or Europe) to carry weapons except for those required to do so for military reasons
loading...
PMike
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
“A right is not a right until it is given.”
Are you a U.S. citizen?
Have you never heard something like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”…
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
We are talking prior to the constitution being written
loading...
mf
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Thank you Shiva, PMike check your dates in history. Are you a citizen? Are you related to Palin?
loading...
sparky
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 9:27 am
“I think there is a difference between the “right” to carry arms that the constitution gives you.”
The Consititution does not “give you” this right. With perhaps the exception of “the right” to a jury, the Constitution does not grant you the right to keep and bear arms, free speech, etc. The founders believed these to be “natural rights,” meaning that no *government* had the right to take them away. That is why no where in the 2nd Amendment does it state anything about “giving” or granting a right, but on the contrary, restricts the government from infringing upon a right that is assumed to already be held by the people.
You may disagree with the idea of “natural rights,” based on how YOU interpret who or what is the grantor of rights, but you have zero historical grounds to claim that this was not considered a “right” because the government had not granted it.
There was a lot of debate around the time of the Constitution, with some founders believing that there must be a “Bill of Rights” to ensure that certain inherent or natural rights were protected *FROM* the government, and others who were against this because of the concern that people (such as you) would view such a Bill of Rights incorrectly as the SOURCE of the rights in the first place.
By the way, Madison, who is considered the “Father of the Bill of Rights” was in the latter camp, which is probably why so many of the Amendments are written so strongly in the sense that they do NOT grant rights to the citizens, but presuppose their existence by restricting the government’s actions on them.
This is all historical record.
Any argument that Palin’s remarks regarding arms in this case were wrong, because the 2nd amendment did not exist, is simply and utterly incorrect.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 9:34 am
Guess what. Had there been no second amendment you would not have the right to carry guns. There would have been no mention of them in the constitution and nothing for the Supreme Court to argue on them with. They would not have been a natural right or anything else.
loading...
sparky
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 9:56 am
“Guess what. Had there been no second amendment you would not have the right to carry guns. There would have been no mention of them in the constitution and nothing for the Supreme Court to argue on them with. They would not have been a natural right or anything else.”
Guess what…. That is your opinion, and it is completely contrary to the opinions and thoughts of the founders when they (a) separated from Britain and (b) wrote the Constitution.
You can spin it to your perspective any way that you would like, you can argue any way that you like that *YOU* think rights only exist when granted by the state, but that does not change the way the founders viewed these issues.
Intellectual honesty would dictate that you recognize the distinction between how YOU think things should be vs. how those who revolted from Britain thought things should be, even if you think they were wrong. The historical record is very clear on this and “natural rights” were a huge foundation for the revolution and how the Constitution was written later. The lack of a 2nd Amendment at the time of Revere & co’s ride is absolutely irrelevant to Palin’s comments, and any argument that Palin was wrong due to it not yet existing is an argument that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of history (that is at its core much worse than the ignorance that is alleged at Palin).
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 9:59 am
The thoughts of the founders are meaningless in a court of law beucase it is not written that anyone has the right to bear arms any place that would hold water in court.
loading...
sparky
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 10:21 am
“The thoughts of the founders are meaningless in a court of law beucase it is not written that anyone has the right to bear arms any place that would hold water in court.”
The thoughts of the founders are written in the Constitution itself. Are you really arguing that the Constitution would not hold up in court? Do you live in the U.S.?
You seem to have a philosophical disagreement with the founders (and conservatives): You believe a right only exists if explicitely granted by the state. The founders then, and generally speaking conservatives today, believe that “natural rights” already exist and are not to be taken away by the government – the government does not grant them.
That this is your philosophy does not make it fact! Therefore, you can only state that you believe the founders were, and Palin is wrong philosophically to believe there was any such “right,” but you cannot argue that she was factually incorrect in believing so, unless you have factual information to prove that a right is only a right when granted by the state (which you do not have).
And in any case, you have not supported at all the argument that Palin was wrong because the 2nd Amendment didn’t exist. Clearly, she was trying to paraphrase the view of the people involved at the time, and that was their view, even if YOU believe they had the wrong view.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 10:34 am
you have created a circle for yourself. Also, you are twisting my words. No place within the Constitution is the right to bear arms documented except for the Second Amendment. If it were not documented in the Second Amendment you would not have the right to bear arms no matter if you think it is a natural right or not. Anyone could go before the Supreme Court and get the right to have weapons taken away if it were not written in the Second Amendment.
You are the one that is arguing about Palin. I don’t see any reason to waste my time on that idiot. I am saying that without the Second Amendment you would not have the right to bear arms
loading...
sparky
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 11:17 am
“Also, you are twisting my words. No place within the Constitution is the right to bear arms documented except for the Second Amendment.”
Twisting your words? You are quite clear both above and below! And whether the right is “documented” (who is twisting words now?) elsewhere is irrelevant. Whether YOU believe that there is a natural right or not, this is what the founders believed. That is why it is written as it is. There is nothing you can do or say to argue that this was not their intent when they wrote this.
“If it were not documented in the Second Amendment you would not have the right to bear arms no matter if you think it is a natural right or not.”
You are correct according to modern “liberal” interpretation of rights, and I appreciate your startling admission! But again, your opinion is not a fact. And you have presented absolutely NOTHING to show that this is more than your opinion.
“Anyone could go before the Supreme Court and get the right to have weapons taken away if it were not written in the Second Amendment.”
Yes, and this would, in the minds of people who believe in natural rights, be an example of the government trampling on a right that still exists.
“You are the one that is arguing about Palin. I don’t see any reason to waste my time on that idiot. I am saying that without the Second Amendment you would not have the right to bear arms”
Wrong and wrong. Clearly, I am responding to you, who responded to someone defending Palin from the incorrect arguments in this sub-thread. Therefore, YOU entered an argument about this, as it relates to Palin, because you are attempting to back up the author and refute someone defending Palin. And clearly, you do see reason to “waste [your] time on that idiot” because you are an active participant in a thread that is specifically about her! Do you really think you’re being honest in denying either?
It would be very useful to you if you learned to distinguish between what your philosophy is, what your opinion is, and what fact is. It would also be good for you to understand that even if something is not YOUR opinion or position, it might have been the opinion or position of other people back in history, and that may be part of the basis for analysis.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 11:41 am
A natural right does not stand up in court. Sorry. Now I am a gun owner, but you are taking the natural right way to far. It doesnt exist unless its documented. It doesnt matter him and whose eyes might be trampling on rights. It is not a right that exists
.
I find it interesting that you tell me how much my opinion doesn’t matter. Yet here you are demanding that your opinion is the final analysis on the matter. Maybe you should take your own advice. A natural right is absolutely meaningless in court. It doesn’t matter what Mr. Madison thought, what Mr. Jefferson thought, it will not stand up. If someone wanted to take that right away
Palin was not right. She said that they were coming to take away the guns of the colonists. They were not. They were coming to destroy the stockpile of weapons in Concorde, coming to destroy the animal, the food and the tents that were stored there. That was the orders of the general.
But at least you admitted that a natural right will not stand up in court. That has been my whole point. Without the Second Amendment you would not have the right to bear arms. Without the Second Amendment the right, or the natural right that you keep speaking of would’ve been forgotten many many years ago. if you can find any writings that state that the gun ownership is a natural right. I will be more than happy to read. Because in effect I agree with you that it is a natural right although not endowed by the Creator or anyone else. Gun ownership is been a “natural” right throughout Europe since guns were created. Very few governments have attempted to take them away.
loading...
Marconi Darwin
Jun. 9th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
I do. Paul Revere warned the British by carrying some bells and firing shots from his front-loading muskets.
On horseback.
Do you have any clue of how the world is in 2011?
loading...
YeahRight
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
“The regulars were marching to Concord & Lexington to confiscate gun powder… ”
Correct and not to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock as Liberals would have you believe (or as the statement from the Paul Revere House indicates)
loading...
Constantine Dactelides
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
How long are we going to allow our media to paint Palin as some savior or political genius. She is a joke who let her daughter get pregnant in high school, seems to think there is nothing wrong with a teen-age girl having a baby and doesn’t know anything about the history of the country she thinks she is capable of leading…..She is a joke
loading...
Mike
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Amazing.. people who don’t bother to learn history, condemning someone for idiocy because of their OWN lack of education.
These are taken from Paul Revere’s OWN accounting of what happened…
of the soldiers he met on his way…
“I told him I knew better, I knew what they were after; that I had alarmed the country all the way up”
“When we got within about half a mile of the Meeting House we heard a gun fired. The Major asked me what it was for, I told him to alarm the country”
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Mike . . . . So you believe Sarah Palin read “Paul Revere’s” own words like you did or researched???
How many of us have been taught George Custer was a hero who was ambushed by the Sioux and so brave for that last Stand?? How many of us Americans believe that to be the truth? If a politician quoted something like that . . .I would not call him a fool because that is the Gloss-over history lesson we receive. Actually read up on how foolish Custer was if you have not already.
Palin was pretty much rambling on, and I think any objective viewer of her answers could see that. Just because you can find something that maps to what she was saying . . ..doesn’t make her any smarter.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Sorry if my Custer reference doesn’t make sense. I’m simply saying that most Americans are taught one way or other about Paul Revere’s ride to warn the colonialists. About the one if by land and two if by sea. I’d feel pretty safe putting a big wager that’s all Sarah Palin was taught on this also, and if she had come close to repeating elementary/middle school teachings I would be OK with that, just as if someone claims Custer for his Last Stand, where he was actually at fault.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Typo . ..just as I’d be fine if Americans claim Custer to be a hero per the gloss over history lessons. Most books with the actual details of what happened show him to be very a) Arrogant/Cocky b) Foolish c) Bad Leader . . or all of the above on that day.
loading...
sparky
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 9:45 am
It’s not a matter of whether she is “smarter” or “rambling,” or even whether she did the research herself, etc. It is a matter of whether she was correct or not on the main facts.
Are you really suggesting that portraying history more accurately than Longfellow’s poem, despite some technical mistakes, is just as bad as getting the facts wrong? Do you realize that the majority of criticism she has received over this has been based on getting the main facts wrong, and now you think she deserves the same for getting the main facts right? You are essentially arguing that an “appeal to common knowledge,” even if known to be false, is NOT a logical fallacy.
If the common knowledge matched the historical knowledge, her technical errors, which is all that critics have to hang onto now, would not even be a story. I should add that her critics are not hanging on to just her technical errors, but their own as well, such as the argument that somehow Palin’s comments were directly referring to the 2nd Amendment.
loading...
Julia
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Could you cite your sources for Paul Revere’s own words? Or maybe a link to his account of the entire incident. That might help us put some random quotes in context. You do realize that Revere himself was not firing warning shots nor ringing bells as Palin stated in her speech.
loading...
boshspong
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Mike was there! Don’t ya know? so was Palin – shame on you for asking embarrassing questions…
loading...
Ulf
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
http://www.masshist.org/database/doc-viewer.php?item_id=99&mode=nav
Link to a letter that Paul Revere penned. Page 4 is what Palin was talking about. Everything she said was correct about the ride.
And the Soldiers were attempting to find the militias weapon/ammo cache, that is different from confiscating weapons from the British citizens, which the people of Boston were.
” The British held Revere and interrogated him with a pistol on his chest. He was asked about the plans of the militia and where they kept their ammunition. When asked where the Patriots were hiding he told them the truth and replied that they had 500 militiamen in Concord protecting them and 1500 coming.”
And the people in Boston were ringing bells and making all types of noise to get the word out.
Nothing Sarah Palin said on this issue was incorrect, the odds of her making up all these facts and carelessly getting them all right?
loading...
TheHawk
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
I am forced to assume that you either misunderstood the letter you cite or are deliberately misrepresenting it.
Not only does the letter in no way support Ms. Palin’s claims that Paul Revere was riding to “warn the British” it clearly refutes it. On page 2 he states very clearly that his objective was to warn Hancock and Adams that the British were on the move. In fact he clearly indicates that he tried to avoid any contact with the British, which would make warning them about anything very difficult.
While he does say he was interrogated by the British at no point did they ask about ammunition. The quotation you say comes from Page 4 does not actually match any part of the text.
And yes, while he certainly did warn one group of British that their were large number of American troops gathering to say that his ride was intended to warn them is clearly false.
It is certainly possible that Ms. Palin is familiar with the document you mention; I would not presume to judge her education. But her description of the purpose of Paul Revere’s ride is clearly incorrect, whether deliberately or through ignorance.
loading...
NCVet2005
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Hahaha! BUSTED!!!!!
loading...
sparky
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 10:09 am
So, you argue that his ride was solely to warn Hancock and Adams?
loading...
sparky
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 10:29 am
@ TheHawk: You use Ulf’s link against him to prove your argument. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that you propose that the sole purpose of the ride was to warn Adams and Hancock. In any case, there is clearly more to the story than your own rebuttal and it looks like you also need to spend some more time doing research, or reading more closely.
“He writes of avoiding British soldiers and reaching Lexington, where he conveyed information to Hancock and Adams and where he met up with William Dawes. After Revere and Dawes set off for Concord, they were joined by Samuel Prescott, who helped them “allarm all the Inhabitents.”
What else are we missing from the story that you might be omitting in order to keep the attack on Palin alive?
loading...
Marconi Darwin
Jun. 9th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Of course, yes. Take your head out of her posterior so that you can spot the error in what she said:
“He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells…”
You see, it is kinda difficult for someone riding a horse to ring bells, and fire warning shot(s) to the enemy with front-loading muskets.
Not to mention the idiocy of firing shots as he rode quietly to warn Hamilton and co. against the British.
Seriously, get a grip.
loading...
YeahRight
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
She said “He warned the British… by ringing those bells … as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots…”
Yes now I see how that’s exactly the same and she is 100% correct.
loading...
Ana
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Amen, Mr. Easley. “Those who seek fame and position themselves as presidential candidates should be held accountable for their words.”
loading...
Mary-Louise Scott
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
OMG – Palin is NOT supported by Liberals, or Leftists etc. She is an extreme Rightest/Conservative. So it is irrelevant whether or not Liberals thought GW BUSh could be president
loading...
Peter
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 5:21 am
Explain your faulty logic, please… the fog is thick. Perhaps you can cut through it. You seem to happily be mixing apples and oranges…
loading...
Denise
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
I’m not American but I am a woman and Palin is an embarrassment to all of us.
loading...
Calico
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
you, my friend, are amazing! she is an embarrassment to me as well.
loading...
Julia
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
The British forces were not being deployed to deprive citizens of their rights to bear arms. They were being sent to seize a cache of arms and munitions which were being secretly and illegally stored. I for one am glad the British did not succeed, and that eventually the first shot fired at Lexington resulted in our great nation. HOWEVER…Sarah, as usual, put her pretty little foot in her screechy little mouth, and distorted the facts to suit the agenda of her backers, handlers and supporters. The events leading up to the first battle of the American Revolution in no way threatened the average citizen’s ability to bear arms. Period. It was a tactical maneuver on the part of an policing military force, nothing more. Transplant this event to America’s involvement in certain Middle Eastern countries: imagine a small American force going to seize of cache of arms from an underground militia-ype organization. Happens a lot, I’m sure. Would we then, by virtue of engaging in this operation, view this force as depriving te local citizenry of it’s ability to protect itself? I doubt it.
loading...
Caustic
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
You are right in a few respects. The British regulars were not out to take away personal weapons away. What they were doing was after the militia arms that were being stockpiled. However they were attacking the rights of the colonist as they saw it. The colonies had militia forces and viewed it as their right. These forces have long fought along side of British regulars. They were legal forces that have always operated in the colonies. My memory is failing me but not sure if was Fraklin or another who wanted the colonies to form a unified colonial army to serve along side British regs during times of need. The attempt by the British to disarm these militias was therefore viewed as stripping another right away from the colonies. Just like the taxation question. It does then become central in the formation of the 2nd admen years later. So the even is linked but yes those standing upon the Lexington green were more or less defending their right to hold arms in the militia since. This is a simplification of this view but yes it did not have to do with taking away individual arms. There were those in the colonies though that did view it the same. We today think a weapon is to defend against an intruder or something like that. Back then there weapons were used to defend towns and farms against raids from unfriendly Indian raids. Or to participate with expeditions with the British army. One gun can’t stop a raid of Indians it took several. Which required stockpiles of powder. So they did view it as taking away a basic right of defense against Indians and their British Regulars.
loading...
Phil
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Palin is doing the dumb act deliberately, as G.W. Bush did, to have the vast majority of Americans, who are undereducated and proud of it, identify with her. Bush could say “proliferation” with ease. Why couldn’t he ever say “nuclear”. Did he not have handlers to instruct him that it wasn’t “nukular”? No, this is a very calculated ploy, based on the important fact that it is very difficult to underestimate the intelligence of the American population.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Hah . . . Phil, there’s acting and then there’s not knowing when to act. Just as she stammered and stuttered trying to answer Katie Couric’s trick question on “what do you read” . . .she sounded exactly the same the other day when talking about Paul Revere’s ride – “Palin Version”. She should have just stopped, but she can’t help herself. Just watch her during these episodes.
loading...
Parky
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 11:46 am
I recall the wonder boy saying “corps man”{ guess the teleprompter was off! Remember the 56 states in America? Palin is doing a great job of distracting the left. I love it how she drives the MSM crazy.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Oh no! Oabama did that? Oh NO!!!!!!!!
loading...
rhcrest
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
No this is not wrong at all. My son just had to do papers on both of these men and she is exactly right. The reason Paul Revere was warning them about the British was because they were coming to confiscate the weapons and ammo stored in Lexington and Concord. They also wanted to arrest both of these men.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
rhcrest. . . . .but you do understand one of the contention points is Mrs. Palin indicated Paul Revere was warning the British. As you indicate he was warning the Colonials of the British coming. Again – head spinning . . . Palin supporters are now coming in from different angles to support what she said, and are contradicting one another. I guess history, like many religious documents, is all in the translation:)
loading...
rhcrest
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Yeah and Ozero is just so smart with his 57 states and the “country” of Europe and the “Austrian” language and corpseman as if referring to a cadaver. Yeah he is just so intelligent without TOTUS.
loading...
Peter
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 5:25 am
It’s amazing how many presidents seem to have failed elementary geography (probably because Reagan decided it should be an ‘elective’ since Amurricans don’t need to know where anything else is in the world.
Dumbya had a hard time with the same area, including the ‘great country of Africa’ and many others…
and, btw, Austrian is close to a language, even if in fact what they speak in Austria is a variety of German. When in Austria as a German-American (me), one is often hard-pressed to remember it is the same language, and even more so for Switzerland.
loading...
rhcrest
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
It’s amazing how many people on here have such a strong opinion that Sarah is wrong and they don’t even know anything about what happened during those days – judging by the comments. It’s amusing watching clueless people accuse others of cluelessness. Please go to the library and do some basic reading before you criticize that which you know nothing about.
loading...
Herb
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
All this hatred and vitriol! I’ve spotted a little propaganda myself. They should have made the article and video more authoritative by quoting her saying “second amendment rights” instead of weaving that into the fabric of their hit piece. Of course the Patriots weren’t going to let another country take their weapons. If it were Obama vs. Palin today, I must say I’d vote for Palin and be proud of it. Photoshop that into your little three corner hat…with all due respect
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
of course you would vote for palin. You have no criteria for the office of president. BTW, that image came off the net, not photoshoped here
loading...
Peter
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 5:27 am
‘P’atriots… with a capital p you have just made them into the New England football team… the whole point was that Governor Paleface was supposed to be speaking about First Amendment rights. Wake up and visit the outside world sometime. That rock you are under can’t be that cozy!
loading...
Terre
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Considering that the Constitution wasn’t written until 1790, the 2nd ammendment din’t exist in 1776. Photoshop that into your lack of knowing when the Constitution actually came into being.
BTW did you know that Rhode Island was the last state to ratify the Constitution?
loading...
Anne
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 10:09 am
You are one of the enablers who feed her obvious delusions that she should be president by minimizing the significance of her many blunders. It does no good to point to the fact that other public figures have made mistakes, because Palin is unique in being unable or unwilling to admit when she is wrong. Do you really want as president someone who called North Korea one of our allies? I would say that that is one of many blunders that completely eclipse the 57-state misstatement by our president in terms of showing her ignorance of international as well as national affairs. She is an international laughingstock, and so are the Americans who still believe she is presidential material.
loading...
rocker 313
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
sarah palin continues to make a fool out of her self yet again how in the world is the media giving her the time of day? Do any of you palin supporters recall her interview with Charles Osgood or Katy Couric? she couldn’t even answer the questions with any real intelligence! this is not high school there is absolutely no way she is capable of running the country! how stupid can you be to think she is this is real politics with real problems not some small town crap like she is used too wake up she was picked for her looks not her brains! and you palin supporters fell for it the proof is every time she opens her mouth! wake up suckers!
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 4th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Unfortunately she has many supporters who enable her by trying to show how her gaffes are actually accurate and she is on an intellectual plain above the average American. It’s like a parent constantly defending their child who gets in trouble at school.
loading...
Calvin1
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
They don’t want her to be President….they want her to be their girlfriend (for about a week). If she looked like Margaret Thatcher, they wouldn’t even hear her when she “speaks”.
loading...
coolfabguy
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 12:10 am
Politicians don’t know history because, unlike many from the past who had backgrounds in education, i.e. historians, teachers…they are now all LAWYERS!
loading...
Brian
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 11:10 am
This account in “Paul Revere’s Ride” by David Hackett Fischer (Oxford University Press 1994), may be of interest to Think Progress and all the others laughing because they purport to be so much better informed than Palin:
“A townsman remembered that ‘repeated gunshots, the beating of drums and the ringing of bells filled the air.’…. Along the North Shore of Massachusetts, church bells began to toll and the heavy beat of drums could be heard for many miles in the night air.”
It’s available on Google Books.
Here is the original historical text written by Revere:
“I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd …me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, 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. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms.”
Palin’s short statement on the video was less than clear; that sometimes happens but the part of the statement which has people screaming — that Revere warned the British that the colonial militias were waiting,… and that bells were ringing,… and shots being fired — appears to be true.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Sometimes happens? Whenever she does non-Fox interviews where the questions direct her to an answer, and she actually has to dig into the Sarah Palin Brain Library, she almost always says something that makes many go . . . ..hmmmmmmmm.
loading...
elcy
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Sorry, Brian, but there’s no way that Sarah Palin or any of her apologists, including you, can spin her mangled tale into any semblance of historical accuracy.
As the article points out, Revere’s was a quiet, covert mission to warn Hancock and Adams of their impending arrest. (I doubt that he would have stopped at ‘each’ house, since not all of the colonists sided with the rebels.) He didn’t shoot any guns or ring any bells; that happened after the alarms had been raised, and after he’d been stopped and questioned by British troops. What he told them was more in the form of a confession under duress than a warning, but to his credit, he reportedly exaggerated the number of the militia – who, in today’s terms, probably would be regarded as ‘terrorist cells’.
loading...
Stan Jankowitz
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Revere did in fact tell the British that the colonial militias, who had been alerted, were waiting for them. Here is the original historical text written by Revere (spelling in original, bold added):
“I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, 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. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms. . .”
http://www.masshist.org/database/img-viewer.php?item_id=99&img_step=1&tpc=&pid=&mode=transcript&tpc=&pid=#page1
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
I repeat myself . . ..but you assume Sarah Palin read that same transcript or another similar. I’ll stick with my assumption that she knew as much about the “Midnight Ride of Paul Revere” as the average American. She blustered her way through that answer . . .and thanks to folks digging it sounds like she may have gotten lucky, and what she said can be mapped to some versions of what actually occurred.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
My head is spinning with many of the posts regarding transcripts and little known authors historical version of Paul Revere’s ride. I’m sure if Sarah Palin had gone in that deep to read these transcripts and other books about Paul Revere . . . .she would have been able to answer Katie Couric’s question “What do you read”?? Don’t ya think? You betcha!
loading...
Brian
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Are the media just furious that after almost three years of tearing this woman apart, they haven’t been able to finish her off? Rush Limbaugh commented on this Friday:
They hate her, they despise her, they are frustrated that they haven’t destroyed her. They can’t believe she’s still smiling. They can’t believe she’s still drawing crowds. They can’t believe that she’s enjoying life. They can’t believe her family is still together. They can’t believe her husband hasn’t walked out on her. They can’t believe any of this. Folks, you know this as well as I do: When they set out to destroy you, they mean just that — and Palin’s not playing along with the script. She’s not acting destroyed. She’s not asking for forgiveness. She’s not begging them to leave her alone. She’s not changing in order to make them lighten up or anything. She’s just looking at ‘em and smiling.
I think he nailed it. She is playing the media like a finely tuned fiddle. She gives them a sound bite, they eat it up, and it blows up in there face.
As far as her knowing the transcripts that I pointed out? I don’t know, nor do I care. She was, after all, just there. When I go someplace in America that holds historical value, I try to learn more about it. I enjoy that. Maybe she does too. Better luck next (sound bite) time.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Actually Rush is just drumming up business. The media treats her like Queen Elizabeth. She Cant answer questions and blames everything on the media.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Brian, it seems you have great respect and admiration for ex-Gov. Palin. That’s fine, and we all can have own opinion. I actually enjoyed listening to her initially thinking she was a fresh voice and personality on the political scene. As time went on I came to my opinion that she only was good at criticizing and not creating. She seemed to be far too thin skinned and petty with every slight she deemed pointed in her direction. Actual or perceived. I just watched her on Chris Wallace, and just can’t believe they don’t ask her a second question after she answers. When she says she would vote against raising Debt Limit – she replies yes, then says she knows enough others would vote to raise it. Why don’t they what she would do if she was the deciding vote? I just wish she’d give a real interview again. Maybe she would ace it, but again, I think that thick skin and propensity to bluster would prevail.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Correction: Thin Skin instead of thick skin in my last question. Also, that Deficit Vote question was just one example. After every question she answered, I had about 3 follow-ups immediately in mind to get an actual position. Instead Fox must have some rule to allow her to give just a basic, pretty much “sound bite” answer – without any further cross examination. That doesn’t happen to Liberals interviewed on that Lefty channel MSNBC . . . and I watch both Fox and MSNBC a lot.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Brian . . . I’m not sure if the bulk of the media hates/despises her. What I do think is that they’d all like to get a fair chance to expose her. If she ever gave them a fair chance, she may or may not come out the winner. I don’t see too much depth there . . .again that’s just my opinion. Just look at the many things she supported as Governor that she suddenly was against because the current Admin wanted to do it. There are quite a few.
loading...
Calvin1
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Rush is playing you all like the yes-men you are. And laughing all the way to the bank. But he must not give a F@&*^ about this country in reality.
loading...
NCVet2005
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Pee Wee Herman used to make a mistake and say “I MEANT to do that!” Maybe Palin is the same way! Maybe she is using an Ali Rope A Dope maneuver to make us think she is an idiot and write her off. Then when we think she’s finished, she’ll devise a new way to produce antimatter, explain ultra energetic cosmic ray, and reveal why quitting her job as Governor somehow prepares her for the scrutiny that would come with the presidency. Sneaky Palin!!!!
Saraphrasing the Scooby Doo villians, “And I’d have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for those meddling Americans with common sense!”
loading...
Rick Barnes
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Interesting gaffe…I wonder if her bus tour will take her to all 57 states that Pres. Obama visited in 2008? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
You run with the bast of them!
loading...
NCVet2005
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Now show me the video of him defending it. “Oh I know my states!” Then hundreds of so-called Obamanites would post about how there were these small now non-existent states like Franklin, Washoe, etc. that make up the extra seven. Few people know about this and we know he didn’t misspeak, he did his research. To paraphrase the Palimbiciles: “So, actually, Obama was right!”
loading...
sullinsea
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Since the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable one each individual is endowed with at birth by the Creator, the date the Bill of Rights was ratified is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment merely acknowledges a right that existed long before its passage and constitutionally limits the federal government from impinging upon it. In point of fact since 1632 Massachusetts acknowledged this right. At the time it also required each person to possess the type of weapon one would carry into combat – what we might describe today as an “assault weapon.” Palin was right on that point, her critics wrong.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Im with you. I think every nutcase on earth should have a weapon. Helps cut down on the population dont you agree? And all those nice private prison corporations can get filthy rich! In fact as this creator you speak of handed out the right, shouldnt we be giving guns to everyone free of purchase?
loading...
sullinsea
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Typical – the point was that Palin was historically accurate about recognition of the right to bear arms in colonial MA. When a collectivist who has no respect for our endowed rights is losing the argument, he or she attempts to distract or deflect. Thus, you argue that even though it can never be legitimate,the political class everywhere should disarm the people. First, certifiable “nutcases” have no right to be armed and are prohibited from doing so under current law. Neither I nor Palin advocated for the insane to be armed – unless, of course, you meant that anyone who resists being disarmed by the political class is by definition a “nutcase.” That would be absurd. No, I do not agree that the population would be “cut down” by having their rights trampled. Rather the contrary – more deaths are prevented by those armed than are caused thereby.
And, finally, another typical perversion of the very essence of a right – trying to distort it into just another government entitlement. No, just because you have a right to keep and bear arms doesn’t imply the federal government has the legitimate authority to confiscate and redistribute wealth to enable those unable to afford a weapon to do so. Nevertheless, colonial MA did just that at the time, thus, Palin was right and her critics wrong. But progressive collectivists need us to forget our actual history in order for them to persuade us to surrender our rights so they can “fundamentally transform” us into just another social welfare state like almost everywhere else in the world that has not embraced our revolution.
http://www.saf.org/Journal/1/LEVIN.htm
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
sullinsea . .. . you need to get out a little more.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Palin was talking about the right to carry a gun today. She knows nothing else. There was no “right” to carry weapons during that time. People had carried guns up to that time since they were invented. But it was not a “god given right”
As for your collectivist BS, its BS. the same as your “endowed” stuff. If the right to guns was endowed by this creator guy, guns need to be free. Everyone has the god given right to them after all
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Shiva, I totally agree. Wow, there was a lot going on in that response. Creator given rights to bear arms, endowed this, impinging that, constitutional this, federal that. It reminded me of reading a Vendor Contract where 20 four-syllable words used/seen only in contract – basically mean . ..you can’t sue me. After reading political blogs for quite some time, you’d think every fourth American was a Constitutional Lawyer.
loading...
sullinsea
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
There’s no way anyone can rationally interpret Palin’s answer above as referencing the contemporary 2nd Amendment right (as if the right was granted by humans only when put in writing). The blog entry we are commenting on itself asserts, correctly, that she was saying that Revere was, among other things, getting the message out that the people not allow themselves to be illegitimately disarmed in violation of their right at the time to keep and bear arms acknowledged under MA colonial law and in the English common law. The blogger above ridicules her on the false premise that the right to keep and bear arms did not exist until at least 1787 – when the Constitutional Convention met. (As a matter of fact, if the right didn’t exist until the Bill of Rights was ratified, it didn’t exist until 1791.) But that is not accurate and the blogger is quite clearly wrong historically.
“When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. 29 The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.”
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
As I linked earlier, it was actually mandatory that MA colonialists of the time keep the kind of arm he would take into combat.
Of course we are endowed with this right and certain others at birth by the Creator. That is the foundation of our nation, as specifically articulated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, upon which our nation and its ideology was founded. The preamble clearly states, that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ….”
You have a right to believe in the Creator or not, but you do live in a country based upon the self-evident knowledge that our rights come from him and not mere humans and that no mere human can legitimately impinge upon or put his boot on the neck of any one of those rights.
Palin was right, the blogger is wrong.
When did we start so mal-educating people in this country that they can no longer perceive that which is self-evident? Your insistence that every right empowers the government to redistribute wealth to make sure everyone has what they have a right to not be confiscated shows a profound misunderstanding of the very nature and definition of rights. A right is something the government cannot impinge upon. No right depends upon being handed out by government. The false premise you posit would legitimate government trampling upon the unalienable right to property and the pursuit of happiness/virtue to make sure everybody had a weapon. Absurd and profoundly unserious.
I note since your are unable to respond rationally, you resort to name-calling. My accurate criticism of “progressive” collectivists, who are at the forefront of the effort to illegitimately disarm the people, is not “BS.” Collectivists today are no different from the collectivist monarchy of 18thC Great Britain, about whom James Madison wrote, in Federalist 46, “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of all other countries” and that “notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Those who would incrementally “nudge” us step by step from being free self-governing individuals to being cogs in a collectivist state must first disarm us.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
1st, there is no effort to disarm anyone. You are not telling the truth.
I never said anything about the government redistributing wealth. You are making that up again. I never said anything about the government giving you or anyone anything. You made that up.
You whine about wealth distribution, yet you will allow the country to die with all the wealth on one end of the spectrum. In your inability to grasp what is happening, let me tell you that wealth distribution as mentioned by Obama meant that all phases of our society had to be working. Not taking from the rich to give to the poor. Shall I make things up now and tell you that you hate the fact that all sections of our society needs to be working. You seem to be ok with the fact that we are losing a vast segment of the country so you can spout silliness
You are full of beans. You have a ready made cliche driven theme all ready to go. How do I know that? You immediately when into the fact that I said the government should give you stuff when I said nothing of the kind.
Sarah palin went into her whine about the 2nd amendment. She knew nothing of Revere, and nothing of the gun situation back them. Period. Now go refine your speech. BTW, I didnt call you any names. Stop whining
“(as if the right was granted by humans only when put in writing” Yes, the right as you put it was not a right until it was called a right. The fact that people carried them before being put in the constitution does not make it a right. It many cases it was a requirement but a requirement is not a right.
BTW, stuff your collectivism. Its far too big of a word for you
loading...
Calvin1
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Ayn Rand, much? People, I got past her when I was 16. Grow out of this juvenile crap. Grow Up.
loading...
sullinsea
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
This is a link regarding the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which set forth the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
It would appear the English understanding of the right may have varied from that understood by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence.
loading...
Mark B
Jun. 5th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Sullinsea . . ..OK you do seem rational, but Shiva’s been pretty rational throughout this post. If you think using the term BS is name calling, than Sarah Palin may not be the only one with thin skin. You’ve obviously given this topic much thought and added much well thought out commentary. But again . .. .I think it’s assuming WAY too much to believe Sarah Palin did the same. I mean you did watch her reply correct?? It was like let me keep talking and get out of here. We can go through transcripts, research the internet, or actually be Revolutionary Historians . . . .but she could not do the first two, and I’m pretty sure she’s not the third. So I’ll stick with my very strong opinion that the woman just let’s whatever is on her mind come out. That’s truly why I’d like to see her in a real interview. Like Pres. Obama or not, remember – he was not afraid to go in alone against all those Republicans and answer their questions. And we all know they did not want to make him look good! I don’t think anyone watching that objectively could not be impressed. Imagine Mrs. Palin in those circumstances.
loading...
Steve in MA
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 12:27 am
Sarah is a blithering idiot who has superhuman eye-sight. Remember, she can see Russia from Alaska, defeating the curvature of the Earth to “keep an eye on ‘em.” Thank God she didn’t regale us with the stories of James Otis (who I’m sure she would say invented the elevator) or Sam Adams (who I’m sure she would say started an entreprenurial beer company). As I walk past the graves of many of the Sons of Liberty each weekday, I pray that their corpses are not left spinning by her imaginative rewrites.
loading...
Bob
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 2:45 am
The Palin stuff aside…
We now see how right Bush was for the job and how wrong the “left” was, whatever that is.
Or: Why have nearly all his major policies endured almost into the fourth year of the Annointed One’s administration?
loading...
Veritas
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Boston Herald: “Experts Back Sarah Palin’s Historical Account”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
Anyone care to comment?
loading...
Veritas
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 9:25 am
LA Times: “You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British? Well, he did. Now, who looks stupid?”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html
loading...
sullinsea
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Hmmm … a potential candidate who knows her history and wants to restore our constitutionally limited republic instead of “fundamentally transform” it into something worse than France. While her mal-educated detractors are so driven by visceral hatred they can’t help but call a “gotcha” they don’t even have. Who’s the real idiot?
But really … our nation is mired in circumstances arguably becoming worse than the “Great Depression” being made worse by the policies of the last three years, while the world is on fire. The real point here is asking whether playing “gotcha” over an off the cuff comment about Paul Revere is really your highest priority? And your “gotcha” leaves you looking foolish and Palin vindicated?
loading...
TheHawk
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Both of these articles seem to be putting a great deal of spin on the facts.
They both use the same incident for the basis of their interpretation. After warning Hancock and Adams, Revere was captured by British soldiers on his way to Concorde. When threatened at gun point he told them the militia was gathering. This single incident seems to be the sole basis for the interpretation that at least part of the purpose of his ride was to warn the British.
I don’t think something he said under interrogation after being captured (a capture he clearly indicates he tried to avoid) can be interpreted as an attempt to warn them.
loading...
Fran Dennis
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
I at least thought Sarah Palin knew something about guns! I don’t think Paul Revere could have ridden and shot at the same time, at least not more than one shot at a time. The guns in the 1700′s were mostly muzzle-loading single-shot weapons, weren’t they? You had to pour in the powder, then the bullet (ball?) and ram the whole business down. Not something you could do on a galloping horse!
loading...
tim
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
1. Even a Tommy gun only fires one shot at a time.
2. How long can a horse gallop before it drops dead of overwork?http://www.raraequus.com/articles/horse_long_gallop.htm
Is there a chance a guy riding to send a message might not gallop the whole way? Maybe stop and let Trigger rest a bit while he reloads?
3. It was common for wealthy individuals, frequently officers, but also misfits like pirates, to have numerous guns with them, because reloading was time consuming.
Not saying thats what did happen. But I would not criticize her comments as ignorant when it was realistically possible and plausible, unless I had something like a contemporary eyewitness account. I don’t think poems count by the way.
loading...
Nora
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Your article is further proof that everyone makes mistakes… you state in your paragraph following the Paul Revere House quote that “He had to quietly deliver the message that the regulars were coming to arrest JOHN Adams and John Hancock.”; yet was it not SAMUEL Adams?? I guess even political commentators should have someone proofread before publishing.
loading...
James
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
So is anyone willing to admit she was right now that the facts have come out or will you continue to berate her based on your own ignorance. I don’t think she can be president next term or maybe never but she was correct and you can read Revere’s actual documentaion online.
loading...
Matt
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
She was not right. I don’t understand how him riding horseback ringing bells warning the British is the same as getting arrested and interrogated and conceded information to the British. It is not. The purpose of the ride was to warn the colonists/Sam Adams and John Hancock.
loading...
James
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 10:37 am
She said…”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. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have…He did warn the British.” This, much like Wadsworth poem, is open to interprtation. The British were actually already there (here) so they were all recieving the warning. He was boastful after he was captured and it is pretty clearly spelled out by Revere in his own writing from a 1798 letter, explaining that after he was captured, a British commander began to question him:
“He asked me if I was an express. I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and added, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that there would be five hundred men there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”
That the British wanted to take away the colonists ability to revolt is pretty evident. Most scholars would say that included their individual arms and/or ammunition and this ultimtely led to the second amendment. People around the world are attempting to topple their governments, both good and bad depending on your perspective and invididuals with firearms are leading these revolts. So it is “good” that they have them in Libya but “bad” that they have them in Afghanistan but the government in control would like to limit their access regardless.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 10:45 am
I think your analysis is pretty much correct, but I would say that the British and their movement toward Concorde had no intention of disarming individuals as that would’ve been a full-time job in itself. The orders from the general were to get the munitions that were stored there and destroy them, along with the destruction of food and tents. So in my opinion to expand this out to individuals as much as the British may have wanted to does not apply here
I think this whole argument is getting carried away on what the intentions of Paul Revere and the British were
loading...
James
Jun. 7th, 2011 at 11:56 am
True it is mostly conjecture and opinion as none of us were there :)
loading...
Matt
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Apparently my last comment wasn’t approved. But I have to disagree with the main article on the 2nd amendment. The right to bear arms issue was brought into perspective because the British wanted to take away the colonists guns. Although her comment is wrong about Revere and warning the British that they will not be allowed to take away our guns it is still true they were attempting to do just that.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
That is a bone of contention. The brits were wanting to take the supply of weapons, ammo, food and housing materials(tents) in Concord, not the individual guns which they could not do. So there was really no rights to bear arms issue there.
The right to bear arms was put in so the people would have guns handy because at that time, the military was in great part civilian who would be called to duty on short notice and supply their own weapons
loading...
Matt
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Of course there wasn’t that right. But it was inherent and they wanted to take the weapons/ammo away to protect against an uprising. My point remains that the Brits and tyranical gov’t. is the reason why we put in place the 2nd amendment.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
as you will.
loading...
mark pieratt
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Gentlemen I suggest that you read your history. You can read it from Paul Reveres own words. Revere was captured and during his interrogation by the British Officer he told the British officer that we know of your plans ie to capture Hancock and Adams and to destroy the colonists stores. He also told them that there were approx 1500 colonists that were aware of their intentions {which was a bluff} So gentlemen in effect Ms Palin was essentially correct in the thrust of her story.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Sarah Palin’s much-ridiculed story of Paul Revere isn’t entirely wrong, but it’s badly twisted. Revere didn’t ring bells or fire shots, and he was riding to warn two fellow rebels that the British were coming to arrest them — not to warn the British “that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms.”
loading...
Matt
Jun. 6th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
So where in his ride was his ringing bells and shooting his gun in the air to warn the British? Oh that’s right he wasn’t. Are you really trying to argue that his purpose was to get caught and warn the British while he was being interrogated?
loading...