Again Palin, really? Do you get your history from cartoons?

1. 0

   Texasbetaposted 12 years ago

   This is priceless...why is it that every 3 weeks she gets something ENTIRELY wrong, and it is the media's fault. "What do you read?" was a gotcha question? What a joke
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/0 … 71479.html

   replyreport
2. 78

   Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago

   And whatever she says her apologists try to change history to make it true

   replyreport
   1. 60

      StripedCrunchyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Come ON people. Sarah had a verbal typo, over a truly stupid question.
      
      Now you can tell me how Anthony Weiner is the better person.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Texasbetaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         If this was just a single little gaffe, no worries, we all do it. The problem is, Sarah has dozens and dozens of these. It seems that we are CONSTANTLY being told by the handlers of Sarah and Michelle how they "meant" to say this or that. It is like every 3 weeks man. That isn't a gaffe problem; that is a knowledge problem.
         Weiner is an idiot. I really don't care who sends a picture to whom over the internet. I could care less if Boehner sent Lindsey Lohan a picture of his arse with a flower sticking out of it. BUT - man up. Don't blame the media. Don't be a little child like Weiner did. Nope...no apologies for me. The guy is an idiot. Why tweet this stuff anyway? Why not a personal email? Truly ignorant.

         replyreport
3. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 11 years ago

   I'm disgusted that someone so dumb is being taken so seriously.
   
   Can we all just agree that she's an idiot who's never studied American history and move on?
   
   In fact, let's move on to someone who actually knows American history quite well, can quote the Constitution, knows the Federalist papers quite well, can discuss the ideas of liberty with ease, understands the limits of Executive, Congressional, Judicial and Federal powers.
   
   Let's move on to Ron Paul.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      StripedCrunchyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      On those qualifications, I'm willing to toss my OWN hat into the ring.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Evan,
      
      Palin must have brain freeze from when she was a school girl. To cold in Alaska

      replyreport
4. 84

   Anolindeposted 11 years ago

   Uh ... Experts back Sarah Palin's historical account.  But let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good Palin bashing!
   
   For the 'intellectual curious', read Paul Revere's own account of events.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Your links don't work

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Texasbetaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If you really buy that, then I fear for people around you Anolinde. Riding off to warn the British that the British were coming to take our guns is ignorant. First off, he only rode a few miles...the whole thing is based off a fairy tale by Longfellow. Israel Bissell made the full ride, not Revere. Secondly, they weren't coming to take away our guns. They were coming to kill you, to put down a rebellion. That isn't taking away our guns. Could it be a part of putting down a rebellion? Yes, but then again...so is taking a pee. They have to pee while they are here putting down the rebellion. Telling the country that Revere rode off to warn the (insert here) that they were coming to take a pee, is just as correct...and not accurate. Why? Because the word "to" in her statement. That word in this context initiates singular purpose. Their purpose wasn't to take a pee, neither was it to take away our guns. They wouldn't take away gun rights, just guns of people who are pointing their guns at them. Get it? Their purpose was to put down a rebellion. Finally, you don't warn the people who captured you, while doing the warning, that they are coming. "They" are "they." If gangbangers break into your house, and you scream to your daughter upstairs to get the F out, then you aren't warning the gangbangers who hear you...they just heard you. That isn't a warning, simply a declarative statement.

      replyreport
   3. 84

      Anolindeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hmm ... let me try the links again.  http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politic … d=1343353/

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Anolindeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         That's weird ... lemme try a different one
         http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing … tish.html/

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Anolindeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            And Paul Revere's own account of events http://www.paul-revere-heritage.com/rid … ized.html/

            replyreport
         2. 84

            Anolindeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry for the many posting of links (ugh).  It won't even let me preview prior to submitting   http://www.paul-revere-heritage.com/rid … inal.html/

            replyreport
         3. 84

            Anolindeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            LOL .. oy.  If anyone would like to read it for him/herself, try just typing it in .. dunno why links won't work when I can see it on my screen    For the original version of Revere's own account, it's
            http://www.paul-revere-heritage.com/rid … ginal.html 
            
            And for a modernized version, it's
            http://www.paul-revere-heritage.com/rid … nized.html

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Texasbetaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               You aren't understanding logic.
               "when he desired me, ''to go to Lexington, and inform Mr. Samuel Adams, and the Hon. John Hancock Esq. that there was a number of soldiers, composed of light troops, and grenadiers, marching to the bottom of the common, where there was a number of boats to receive them; it was supposed that they were going to Lexington, by the way of Cambridge River, to take them, or go to Concord, to destroy the colony stores.''
               
               That is the intent of the ride, by admission of his own words.
               
               Warning the British wasn't the intent or purpose of the ride, and he rang no bells, fired no shots, and the British weren't coming to take away our 2nd amendment rights to have guns...they were coming to put down a rebellion.
               
               Each pc occurred as a sidebar to the intent and purpose of each party's mission, thus ruling the statement invalid. They are circumstantial...like taking a pee, as I mentioned before.
               
               Finally, 2 of your 3 links work. 1 posts a single ad for Tea Party Patriots, and the other is written by a known conservative blogger who used to work for Drudge. Again, this is the problem with debating conservatives. They believe anything counts as a viable resource, skirting INTENT and bias. Giving me a conservative blogger's article doesn't weigh much against the 2 history degrees on my wall across the room.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Anolindeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank God she isn't a historian then, eh?  You know, I think I will side with the historians and history professors who agreed that she was essentially accurate.  The thing is, I didn't think she gave the details as well as she could have, but then again, she wasn't giving a lecture.  She was simply asked "what she had seen and what she'd take away from her visit" and she gave a short answer.   BTW, she didn't mention anything about our 2nd amendment rights (at least those weren't the words she used).  As I mentioned in another thread, Palin's purpose of this bus tour (according to her) was to highlight American history and foundations, and it seems her 2 or 3 sentences on Paul Revere all of a sudden got the whole country interested in history again.  I wonder how many people googled Paul Revere to find out more about him because of this.  Not a bad thing!

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Texasbetaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Revere didn't do much historically, but is attributed with quite a lot based upon the Longfellow poem. You again missed the fact that I, personally, have a B.A. and an M.A. in history, have taught history in a collegiate environment, and that the references that you used are not historians or professors, but a history club at one school who also link to the Tea Party Patriots, and a conservative blogger, oh yeah, and Palin...a moron.
                     BUT, if you choose to be ignorant, so be it. You support Palin obviously, so your path has already been chosen.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I find those who support Palin have a knack of being able to look through facts and still not see them as desirable.  Perfect followers for the crazy broad!  Most of them voted for Dubya twice, I would wager.  Nuff sed! 

                        replyreport
                  2. 77

                     Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     "I think I will side with the historians and history professors who agreed that she was essentially accurate."
                     
                     Except the historians and history professors didn't say she was essentially accurate. They said, essentially, if you look at it from a certain way, and make allowances, then I guess maybe you could say she said something that wasn't completely wrong.
                     
                     There's a big difference between what the historians said and "She was right."

                     replyreport
            2. 60

               Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               None of these articles illustrate him "ringing bells" or "warning the British".
               
               ...so...
               
               You're linking to sites that don't prove what you're saying.

               replyreport
   4. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      ERROR ERROR
      
      404 404
      
      ERROR ERROR

      replyreport
5. 61

   SomewayOuttaHereposted 11 years ago

   i watched the video of the interview...it was pretty bad...she should have really just said she didn't have an answer or whatever...rather than making crap up as she went - it was so obvious that she didn't have an answer - and that's okay - just don't try if you can't....ha ha ha...can't have answers to everything

   replyreport
6. 84

   rebekahELLEposted 11 years ago

   Give her a 5th grade US history exam, closed book.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think she would fail an open book test. As far as history, what you learn is based on where you live. I had 2 kids go through school here in Texas. They both are in college now, my daughter is going to SMU. I had told her many times she was never taught the facts about history. The schools here do not teach much about colonial times, they are taught a whole different view of the civil war. So Palin may not have been taught proper history. So when she gets those types of questions, she needs to shut up

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Texasbetaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I have noticed that most of what you learn with regards to history in pre-collegiate educations tends to be designed to make you more patriotic and nationalistic, but doesn't teach actual history in several cases...tends to be slighted towards nostalgia and fairy tales like Paul Revere's ride. The entry level survey courses in college are skimmed down but pack some actual info. The course specific upper level classes tend to be where the real info comes in...usually, they spark you to a topic and make you go scour through dozens of books on your own. I used to have to write 30 page papers almost weekly. Good times.

         replyreport
7. 60

   TMMasonposted 11 years ago

   Palin has the Leftists and their cohorts right where she wants them. They are so damn apopleptic about her, that they are virtually ignoring everything and everyone else on the Right.
   
   Seems to me she makes and excellent distraction for the Right to get around the Left in other ways, while they are stuck in fit mode over Palin.
   
   Could it all be a devious plan on her part?.. hurmmm?...

   replyreport