I bet 90-95% of you don't know who Paul Revere was or What he did to become Famous...Sarah Palin Kn

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Yeah, you guys can keep finding these gaffs from her, and I hope that she does not run for president, but come on, President Obama doesnt even know how many states we have. he thinks 57. you guys are not the least bit concerned about that? Paul revere is not exactly in front of our faces every day, but the map, and how many states we have is way more out in the open.
PS. President Obama thinks that we have been a country for 2000 years. He has sworn an oath to protect a document that he thinks has been in existence for 20 centuries. Please, instead of focusing on someone who has nothing to do with National Security, or changes in our lives, why dont you focus on someone who does matter, namely President Obama.

Originally posted by manta78
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Because we are here to deny ignorance as stated in my post. If I learn something new, which I did today, and even if it is contrary to popular opinion, I feel like that information should be reviewed and presented for accuracy/verification purposes.

What did you learn? I read the article you posted and I am familiar with the author. It is a pro-Palin opinion piece and it actually distorts what actually happened to defend her. That seems a lot like embracing ignorance. If you really think you learned anything from that article, you are giving ignorance a bear hug.

Why am I not buying this?

That is one of the benefits of being an Independent. I don't have to accept one party's side, or opinion without questioning it.

I do not know any real independents that would go out of their way to find an opinion blog that distorts the facts to support Obama or Palin or anyone else. Independents rarely call biased opinion blogs "unbiased sources of learning." Maybe you and I use different words.

The article clearly showed the bias of the MSM who ran off to report Palin's statement. In the old days, there would be a lot of fact checking by the MSM before information denials.

Not really. What the article did was change what happened, defend their new version, and whine a little bit about how poor Sarah is treated every time she asks cameras to follow her. Awwwwwe. Poor thing. Her handlers treated her bad. Katie Couric tricked her by asking what she reads. Gibson totally screwed her over by asking her about policy. Now she keeps getting recorded saying things every time she gathers the media to record what she is going to say. This poor gal just cannot catch a freakin' break. I guess it's a man's world.

Now, not so much.

edit on 6/6/2011 by manta78 because: (no reason given)

Not buying it at all. You might as well have referenced REDSTATE.COM as an unbiased, factual source, where form you learned some new "facts."

w/o cheating
1 if by land, 2 if by see
the redcoats are coming
lanterns
and I think they are where the term 'midnight riders' came from.

Would have been hilarious if she said he was a giant lumberjack with a blue ox or something. One thing for sure is her or Obama can't trip over a crack without a thread opening about it here. May annoy some but I'm impartial so I find it hilarious.

Originally posted by manta78
reply to post by Kitilani

 

I was referring to the fact that I am not a fan of hers, not the author of the article and have clarified that by edit. I do get some really good laughs watching Tina Fey's impression of her on Saturday Night Live.

edit on 6/6/2011 by manta78 because: (no reason given)

Look at this. Fox apparently likes it too...they don't know which one is which...

Is it a comedian? Is it a politician? Can any one tell the difference?

ColoradoJens

reply to post by Kitilani

reply to post by Becoming


I do not believe for a moment she is ever going to run again but you are mocking the wrong people. Palin haters are not the ones donating to Sarahpac. So do explain why people are sending her money? To help her sell her book? To go on vacation? Palin supporters are supporting Palin by sending her money for her political action committee. If they do not think she is going to run for something, what the hell are they doing?

Sorry, Palin supporters think she is running more than anyone else so you need to stop with that excuse.

And you need to stop harping on a non-issue. How do you suppose the other dozen or so candidates pay for their campaigning trips around the country? Out of their own pockets?

Man I can't wait for the race to REALLY heat up and reality comes out of this vague vaudeville show. I'll say 2 things.

1- If the GOP is serious about confronting Obama there is only one choice that can win.... Romney.

2- If they aren't, put this clown on the front page and decimate the party for 15 years.

She is a non-issue.

reply to post by intrepid

Man I can't wait for the race to REALLY heat up and reality comes out of this vague vaudeville show. I'll say 2 things.

1- If the GOP is serious about confronting Obama there is only one choice that can win.... Romney.

They'd better be serious! They are the only chance we have of removing Obama from office.

And Romney is currently my choice, mainly because of his business acumen.

2- If they aren't, put this clown on the front page and decimate the party for 15 years.

She is a non-issue.

I hope she doesn't run, although she would get a sizable amount of support. She could use that support as a chip to bargain with the nominee. She would make an excellent Secretary of Energy, imo, regardless of her knowledge of Paul Revere.

Here comes some official response:

Experts back Sarah Palin's historical account


My favorite excerpt:

But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct, linking to Revere quotes on his conservative blog Legalinsurrection.com, said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”

Sarah 1 Libs 0

reply to post by ColoradoJens
Actually, the head of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston, told NPR today that Palin got it essentially correct!
www.npr.org...

Too bad the MSM and progressives are so desperate to denigrate their critics that they forget to
"fact check." I get the feeling this story got away from the liberals who control content at NPR and it made it to air to their own horror.

Sarah 2, Libs 0.

It just gets worse.
jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Actually, the head of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston, told NPR today that Palin got it essentially correct!
www.npr.org...

Too bad the MSM and progressives are so desperate to denigrate their critics that they forget to
"fact check." I get the feeling this story got away from the liberals who control content at NPR and it made it to air to their own horror.

Sarah 2, Libs 0.

It just gets worse.
jw

edit on 6-6-2011 by jdub297 because: add updated score

I'd say it's more like Sarah 1million, libs 0. Who knew all along eh? From now on when asked who Paul Revere is, I have my answer. Thanks for helping me.

ColoradoJens

reply to post by jdub297


Weird..your username just disappeared from your avvie area and there's a blue line along the left side of your post...

I think CJ is messing with you..

eta..now everything is ok?

dbl post

Sarah Palin's Paul Revere Wikipedia rewrite: who writes history again?

They say if you don't like the topic, change the conversation. Or, "If you don't like your favorite political figure getting roasted by the news media for failing to describe Paul Revere's historic nighttime ride, change the facts on Revere's Wikipedia page."

www.cbsnews.com...

Talk about rewriting history........literally.

Although Palin is breathing a huge sigh of relief due to Weinergate. Perhaps it really is better to be lucky than good.

/MD

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

DAM!

Really, people don't know this basic story?

1 if by land, 2 if by sea? Ring any bells?

Paul Revere's famous ride?

The British are coming?

Let me know if anything starts to trigger, or if you just get a headache.

(ETA:not directed at Jens, just the general "you.")

And nothing surprises me about Palin. The only way Obama gets re-elected is if he is running against any of the Republicans! What a worthless bunch of nincompoops they have put together to try and oppose Obama. I mean, Obama is basically a lame duck, he has no chance of re-election, but wait, oh it looks like the Republicans have decided to concede.

edit on 3-6-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

Heh ironic you mentioned it ringing a bell sir. So did Palin. Warning shots too.

Originally posted by mishigas
Here comes some official response:

Experts back Sarah Palin's historical account


My favorite excerpt:

But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct, linking to Revere quotes on his conservative blog Legalinsurrection.com, said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”

Sarah 1 Libs 0

edit on 6-6-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

The liberals always trip over each other trying to smear Gov. Sarah Palin.
If they traveled up there like she did then they would discover the truth.
It turns out Paul Revere was captured by the British. He then warned the British.
Bill O'Reilly spoke about this on The Factor.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Actually, the head of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston, told NPR today that Palin got it essentially correct!
www.npr.org...

Too bad the MSM and progressives are so desperate to denigrate their critics that they forget to
"fact check." I get the feeling this story got away from the liberals who control content at NPR and it made it to air to their own horror.

Sarah 2, Libs 0.

It just gets worse.
jw

edit on 6-6-2011 by jdub297 because: add updated score

Fact checking is too exhausting.
It's quicker and easier to just smear Sarah.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Actually, the head of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston, told NPR today that Palin got it essentially correct!
www.npr.org...

Too bad the MSM and progressives are so desperate to denigrate their critics that they forget to
"fact check." I get the feeling this story got away from the liberals who control content at NPR and it made it to air to their own horror.

Sarah 2, Libs 0.

It just gets worse.
jw

edit on 6-6-2011 by jdub297 because: add updated score

Fact checking is too exhausting.
It's quicker and easier to just smear Sarah.

(From my reply in similar thread) I'm not lazy or exhausted, just killing two birds with one stone.

And here is what two other notable historians who disagree with that source had to say:

"He didn't warn the British," said James Giblin, author of "The Many Rides of Paul Revere." "That's her most obvious blooper."

"Revere's assignment that night was to go to Lexington to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were moving in that direction from Boston," explained Kristin Peszka, director of interpretation and visitor's services at the Paul Revere House, which Palin visited Thursday.

Source of above quotes plus in depth video:
abcnews.go.com...

Consider it double fact checked.

And here's their messiah without a teleprompter:

It really doesn't matter...who's president, yah know? Because we all really know who they are, that is WHat they are. Talking heads. Teleprompter readers, who steals peoples dreams. You know the people, hard workin, descent people. People who slog to a job they hate, each and every day. There they toil to the pleasure of those despicable one's. And there's their dreams. Hope. Faith. Stolen forever in an instant by the cromulent deceiver, teleprompter reader,,talking head. So you see, it makes no difference which dickhead they pick. Oh you didn't really think YOU picked him did you?? Dude, serious? Are you like frickin kidding me??? Man, I'm like sorry for you bro (or sister).So who gives a sh¥t who Paul Revere was? In ten years from now, you asked the man on the street who Sarah Palin was, he'll just say she was one fine chickenhead.PEACE tres cool amigo's

Reply to: thorazineshuffle. Dig those 50mg. Big brown M & M's baby. As for the one you wuz speakin about in you post; as my man ZEMO used to say"always limelight your vektor". Das right, vektor, with a mutha£@#*in K! If the limelight was down on THAT vektor my man wouldn't a let his argument crumble like that. Bitch slapped him down hard!