Palin's Paul Revere Lesson

[Korriken]

So, reading over the news I noticed an article on people bashing Sarah Palin over the head about a supposedly botched version of Paul Revere's ride. Not surprising, this woman seems to have the animosity of every leftist in America.

well, apparently she wasn't as far off the mark as people think.

This letter that Revere wrote that is preserved by the Massachusetts Historical Society details him being stopped by the British and questioned. Turn out he did warn the British of the soldiers and their weapons.

If the letter is too long and boring, skip to page 4.

the media silence on that one will be deafening.... either that or they'll ignore history and continue to use slap Palin in the face with it, despite that she was apparently right.

either that or some up with some remark like "She's so stupid she could have never read the letter!"

[Malachy]

I found it funny how they are beating her up over getting a children's tale wrong. A children's tale that didn't even have too much to do with facts either. Wasn't Revere given more notoriety because his name was easily rhymed? They all have the story wrong and Palin says enough dumb shit on a daily basis, I don't know why they bother grasping at straws like that. (Maybe because Fox won't let them air her ramblings from their network)

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/6/11 06:54 PM, Malachy wrote: I found it funny how they are beating her up over getting a children's tale wrong. A children's tale that didn't even have too much to do with facts either. Wasn't Revere given more notoriety because his name was easily rhymed? They all have the story wrong and Palin says enough dumb shit on a daily basis, I don't know why they bother grasping at straws like that. (Maybe because Fox won't let them air her ramblings from their network)

I think they grab that because it's easy. To sit there and actually ask people to think for more then five seconds kind of defeats the purpose and function of the media and pundits in general these days.

If the people are very very stupid, it's that much easier to tell them the "correct" way to think about things.

[JeremyLokken]

I like the fact that people had to go run and look it up to find out if it was the whole truth. What's that saying about them?

[Camarohusky]

Some of us ignored the shit out of this event. What did she say and how is it correct?

[Malachy]

At 6/6/11 10:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Some of us ignored the shit out of this event. What did she say and how is it correct?

A reporter asked something along the lines of 'what part of your trip did you enjoy and what is the takaway from it'

she responded with: "He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

It lacked the school rhyme about lanterns and going house to house yelling 'the british are coming!"

People said she was wrong because she talked about him ringing bells.

She said the question was a "gotchya" question and that the backup to what she said was that he did tell some british to say that they best get out of town soon because shit was going down...but I don't believe that was her intent at the time.

Then some griefers tried changing the wikipedia entry for Paul Revere and used youtube videos of Palin talking as their 'cites' and some are saying it was Palin supporters trying to cover up her misconceptions but it's just as possible it was some bored teenagers from /b who thought it would be hilarious to try and fuck with a wikipedia entry.

[Entice]

I agree that it's unfair for even Sarah Palin's words to be ridiculed because they don't match up with the "facts" in some nursery rhyme. Actually, I don't think that the pundits even put that much thought into it. To some of them she's not much more than a political joke, and they just grabbed this statement because they saw a chance to make fun of yet again.

Also, why her statement wasn't necessarily factual incorrect I don't think that she put that much thought into it or that it was a particularly intelligent statement...

I don't see how anything that she does now really warrants any media attention at all any more. If people really think that she's that stupid and incompetent as a politician they should just ignore her. No point in slandering her given even the slightest opportunity.

[BrianEtrius]

At 6/6/11 10:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Some of us ignored the shit out of this event. What did she say and how is it correct?

That's my feeling exactly. The less we pay attention, hopefully the less she'll be in the media. This, of course, is extremely hard to do, but I have faith.

[gumOnShoe]

Her *facts* don't really match up with reality either; let alone the nursery rhyme.

Yes, Revere was going out to protect what was basically a colonial arms depot. But he did it as silently as possible. He was one of two people who did it; and he was a well respected silver smith at the time. I don't know where she got the bell; if not from some sort of fudged story.

The thing is; this is *supposed* to be some sort of educational trip for her. What it really is, is a media stunt to get more attention. I think media sluts (I'd use that term for Trump willingly as well), deserve any negative attention they get.

Her whole tour has been a half hour at any given site where she signs some autographs, takes a few pictures and then gets back on the bus. Her aides hint to a few journalists where she's going next so no one gets lost. Its all a stage. So, when she can't even get a loosely planned media stunt to work right; it shows that she lacks ... well ... a lot.

This is nothing new. I wish they'd stop giving her attention in any situation. But she does keep asking for it.

[Korriken]

At 6/7/11 07:20 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

This is nothing new. I wish they'd stop giving her attention in any situation. But she does keep asking for it.

This is true.

Course, it would be nice if the Media was consistent. Then again, if it was, Obama would have been out to be too stupid to be elected, along with Palin, and a 3rd party might have stood a small chance, perhaps, not likely, but still.

Had McCain or Palin made this mistake the Media would have clobbered them in the face with it for months. it would have been front page news on every newspaper and the main story of the day for a week on every news station, except one.

Or this one

and yet a minor flub in a story, which the SAME PEOPLE who says she botched it, probably believe paul revere actually yelled "The British are coming!" which would make absolutely no sense, since the people were at the time British subjects. He more than likely yelled something like "The Redcoats are coming!" or "The Regulars are coming!" or "The King's men are here!" But don't let the facts get in the way of beating up on a non leftist woman, or glorifying a leftist.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/7/11 07:20 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: This is nothing new. I wish they'd stop giving her attention in any situation. But she does keep asking for it.

And both the left and the right keep giving it to her. She is an extremely polarizing figure...but she gets ratings and sells papers and in general makes the media companies money and gets them eyeballs. So of COURSE their going to pay attention. The only time they won't is when the left starts saying "I don't care what dumb shit she says...she's never getting more then 5% of any primary vote at best, so she's a non-issue" and the right says "she's never getting a majority, she'll never seriously run for president...she uses us so she doesn't have to go get a real job...I'm done with this"

Only then, will Sarah Palin and her family go away.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/7/11 01:55 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Only then, will Sarah Palin and her family go away.

Well fuck. I guess we're stuck with her...

[Bolo]

At 6/7/11 01:55 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Only then, will Sarah Palin and her family go away.

I, for one, hope she doesn't go away.

Because she's a living parody.

[Korriken]

Historians side with Palin... but....

Of course, the "intellectuals" bend over backwards to discredit her anyway. Funny.

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, "Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, 'Look, there is a mobilization going on that you'll be confronting,' and the British are aware as they're marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing - she was right about that - and warning shots being fired. That's accurate."

"I would call her lucky in her comments," McConville said.

yeah. lucky, because obviously Sarah Palin, by virtue of being Sarah Palin is completely incapable of doing any sort of research. She's on the wrong side of the line to have any sort of intellect and being a "normal person" makes her inherently stupid.

Truth of the matter is this. The reason Sarah Palin is being bashed in the media constantly, is because she scares the living hell out of the other politicians.

Most politicians are born rich, marry rich, live rich. Sarah Palin was born to a teacher and a school secretary. Wrong position at birth.

She rose to where she was at, not with Daddy's fortune, and going to the best political colleges around but through her own hard work, beginning at the local level. Wrong way to rise.

She's a conservative female. Wrong Gender or Wrong side of the political spectrum. All non whites and women must be on the left!

She's a member of the tea party movement, Not mainstream republican.

If, somehow, she managed to get the nomination and actually managed to defeat Obama in 2012, both sides would be shitting bricks. literally, most likely. Palin owes the republican machine nothing, given how much shit they give her, and owes the left even less.

The odds of it actually happening are slim, but, 20 years ago people were saying "A black in the white house? That'll NEVER happen!" well they were half wrong.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/9/11 08:49 PM, Korriken wrote: The odds of it actually happening are slim, but, 20 years ago people were saying "A black in the white house? That'll NEVER happen!" well they were half wrong.

You can't seriously be making this comparison... I have an episode of Futurama for you to watch regarding Palin as any sort of 'leader' for women's rights.

[Korriken]

At 6/9/11 10:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You can't seriously be making this comparison... I have an episode of Futurama for you to watch regarding Palin as any sort of 'leader' for women's rights.

I never mentioned women's rights and I am seriously making the comparison. If the economy remains the way it is, and Obama manages to win in 2012 and things don't pick up, a jar of spoiled mayo will be capable of taking the white house from the dems in 2016.

Of course, if the economy doesn't improve by election time, a jar of spoiled mayo might win in 2012.

and as far as Futurama goes, the show sucks. I never did like it.

I do wonder how hard the left would squirm is a tea party candidate did manage to get elected. the news might be worth watching just to see how far the media would twist things to bash the president. and if that president was Palin, then, It would be a seriously nasty 4 years of media.

[Warforger]

Korriken did you forget the entire year of 2008? The reason people hate and fear her is the amount of stupid things she said that entire year, she failed hard on debates and looked more like a gimmick created by the Glenn Beck storm then an actual politician rising through the ranks.

[Korriken]

At 6/9/11 11:51 PM, Warforger wrote: Korriken did you forget the entire year of 2008? The reason people hate and fear her is the amount of stupid things she said that entire year, she failed hard on debates and looked more like a gimmick created by the Glenn Beck storm then an actual politician rising through the ranks.

I remember. I also remember everything Obama said. Difference is, everything Obama screwed up on got swept under a rug, then soaked in gasoline and set on fire then bulldozed, buried and a monument to him got built over it. When Palin, McCain, or Bush (from 2000-2008) screwed up in they made DAMNED sure that the screw up was known to everyone.

And the few times something Obama said did made it out to the public, the excuse train came into town with a full load. Give the kid a breathalyzer? Or maybe an inhalator... oh no, he's just tired, he's not completely lost due to lack of being told what to say, no this man is SMART! he's a genius! You didn't see what you think you just saw, just ignore that, he didn't just screw up!"

Sarah Palin mentions something the "official" history books didn't say about Paul Revere that was actually true? "This woman is a fucking MORON! Listen to her, she doesn't know her history worth a shit!" *historians back her up* oh... uhh.... She just got lucky, that's all, she's still stupid, despite knowing something we didn't.... uhh... yeah she's stupid. stupid woman, talking about cleaning a moose.... moron.

[Elfer]

At 6/10/11 09:49 AM, Korriken wrote: When Palin, McCain, or Bush (from 2000-2008) screwed up in they made DAMNED sure that the screw up was known to everyone.

Honestly, the ONLY thing I remember Palin being made fun of for was her interview with Katie Couric (which was legitimately a train wreck). Who has been making fun of Palin for other stuff? Just people on the internet, which is true of Obama as well.

I guess the other thing I remember was that she made statements indicating she believed in the whole "death panels" thing, which was also legitimately ridiculous.

Honestly though, I think you're overestimating media attention to gaffes. Contrary to popular blogger belief, nobody gives a shit what bloggers have to say.

[wwwyzzerdd]

It's rather sad that so many people are quick to defend someone for being correct based on such a thin technicality. Honestly, the fact that so much attention is being given to what Paul Revere actually did or didn't do is pointless. Yes; the stupid 3rd grade rhyme was completely inaccurate. Keep in mind though, it's suppose to help you remember the date this all occurred on. Truthfully, Revere was captured and interrogated, but the few people he met beforehand were more instrumental in spreading the word of the imminent British advance. Obviously though, who cares to make a story about an alleged American hero who was captured, gave up information to the opposition, and then did basically nothing afterwards?

I really find this whole debacle funny because she was just asked a simple question like "How was your tour and what's something that you took away from it?" Anyone could just simply give an easy answer like "It was nice to actually see a part of history up close." Instead, she blurts out some ridiculous stream of consciousness. Regardless of if she was right or not, how the hell could anyone understand what she was talking about? I always find that funny about her; she tries way to hard to actually sound like she is smart, but really comes off as borderline retarded. She's like a real-life Peggy Hill honestly.

So please, do not focus on if Sarah Palin is right or wrong. Just focus on the fact that Sarah Palin is still opening her mouth and secreting nonsensical jibberish.

[Korriken]

At 6/10/11 11:16 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: It's rather sad that so many people are quick to defend someone for being correct based on such a thin technicality.

When you're right, you're right.

Honestly, the fact that so much attention is being given to what Paul Revere actually did or didn't do is pointless.

They rang the bells and ran through the streets yelling 'Palin botched the paul revere story! Palin botched the paul revere story!" Whether she was right or wrong is THE ENTIRE POINT!

Yes; the stupid 3rd grade rhyme was completely inaccurate. Keep in mind though, it's suppose to help you remember the date this all occurred on.

. . . . Doesn't matter that the nursery rhyme is inaccurate? Never light right or wrong get in the way of a good Conservative bashing eh?

I really find this whole debacle funny because she was just asked a simple question like "How was your tour and what's something that you took away from it?" Anyone could just simply give an easy answer like "It was nice to actually see a part of history up close."

They would have bashed her for it.

Instead, she blurts out some ridiculous stream of consciousness. Regardless of if she was right or not, how the hell could anyone understand what she was talking about? I always find that funny about her; she tries way to hard to actually sound like she is smart, but really comes off as borderline retarded.

Oh let me guess, she used "uhh" when she was speaking? in that case, our sitting president is borderline retarded.

So please, do not focus on if Sarah Palin is right or wrong.

Now hold the hell on. People running around beating her over the head about being stupid, then when qualified historians back her up, you say not to focus on it. That's just intellectual dishonesty.

Just focus on the fact that Sarah Palin is still opening her mouth and secreting nonsensical jibberish.

sounds like typical Liberal thinking to me. "who CARES if she's right or wrong, she's SARAH PALIN! Ridicule her, right or wrong!" She would point up and say, 'The sky is blue" they would bash her for it.

Normally I could give 2 shits, but this has my underwear in a bunch. When you're right, you're right. When you unfairly accuse someone of something, you owe them an apology when you're found out to be wrong. However, the leftists bend over backwards to explain how she is still wrong despite being right. and yet, they accuse others of dishonesty.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/10/11 11:16 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: It's rather sad that so many people are quick to defend someone for being correct based on such a thin technicality.

Look up the legal concept of "aggregation" and you'll know why Palin is nitpicked for every little thing.

[Korriken]

and of course, now, the media is digging through her Emails.
and of course CNN has a special link just for her emails

It's actually beginning to become borderline comical how desperate the Democrats and their machine are to destroy Palin, and at the same time yelling "she doesn't stand a chance! she's an idiot! She'll never be president!"

I personally think they're scared to death of Palin. If she didn't stand a chance, she would be ignored by the media, much in the same way you almost never hear about 3rd party candidates.

and as far as "you're exaggerating media influence" line goes, the media has more influence than most think or want to believe. There's no such thing as unbiased media, its run by humans and humans have agendas. Especially when the humans running the media outlets know they wield such power. Many will take the opinions of the pundits of their favorite outlet's shows at face value and run around repeating them. You can say this isn't true, but most who would also yell that people like Glenn Beck lead armies of simple minded zombies who spread their message.

given that the same people who can get their followers to not give a certain politician shit for screwing up by constantly saying "its not a big deal" or "he was probably just tired" or "Give the guy a break, everyone makes mistakes" can also get them to blindly bash and mock another politician by pointing out every little mistake they make and blow it out of proportion.

and of course, when you have enough of them all leading their own groups in the same direction, you get what we see right here, a bunch of people bashing a politician, then making excuses when they are found out to be wrong. Then when a politician they like is pointed out to have made a mistake, they come and start bashing the person who pointed out the mistake.

[Iron-Hampster]

she does her party more harm than good. she also sets a bad example for how other politicians should be viewed as. Topping all this, she is a distraction from what really matters.

[Korriken]

At 6/11/11 03:41 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: she does her party more harm than good. she also sets a bad example for how other politicians should be viewed as. Topping all this, she is a distraction from what really matters.

Nice. Don't even discuss the topic, just repeat the mantra you're told to repeat. Typical really. No one wants to discuss exactly why Palin is so stupid, because they know they'll have to uphold why Palin is stupid while defending their own kind for doing theexact same thing.

so much for discussion.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/11/11 05:38 PM, Korriken wrote: Nice. Don't even discuss the topic, just repeat the mantra you're told to repeat. Typical really. No one wants to discuss exactly why Palin is so stupid, because they know they'll have to uphold why Palin is stupid while defending their own kind for doing theexact same thing.

so much for discussion.

Almost an autobiography...

[Korriken]

At 6/11/11 07:03 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Almost an autobiography...

eh, whatever. Glad I'm not so blind.

[james19464]

I agree, she is a distraction from what really matters. But frankly, I just like the way she dresses...

[Iron-Hampster]

At 6/13/11 12:01 AM, james19464 wrote: I agree, she is a distraction from what really matters. But frankly, I just like the way she dresses...

is she a milf or a cougar?

[Camarohusky]

At 6/13/11 09:02 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: is she a milf or a cougar?

Isn't being attractive a requisite of both of those?