OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
Yeah, but didn't you know Wikipedia is just a Democratic tool for spreading liberal revisionism?

And so conservapedia speaks nothing but the plain unvarnished truth then, right....? :-P

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Nope, just quit being biased and post the falty quips from all political figures and quit trying to make only one side seem less intelligent.

Hey, if they say it, I'll quote it.....

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
Yeah, but didn't you know Wikipedia is just a Democratic tool for spreading liberal revisionism?

And so conservapedia speaks nothing but the plain unvarnished truth then, right....? :-P

Duh, just look up atheism, evolution, the age of the earth (and by extension the existence of nuclear radiation), Voltaire (who was secretly a Christian), liberals, or geologists (they don't seem to like us).  I do like how God is inserted into every facet of that website.  It must hurt libertarians to see that done to the idea of conservatism.

OFFLINE

Oops.  It’s 1773 all over again.  Roughly a jillion snarky bloggers have taken Sarah Palin to task because she supposedly didn’t know who Paul Revere warned on his midnight ride.  I won’t bore you with all of them.  But let’s start with the Christian Science Monitor. Peter Grier explains that Ms. Palin, in describing the incident as including a warning to the British that they (the British) were not going to take away the arms — you know guns– of the Americans, and including descriptions of bell-ringing was obviously not familiar with Mr. Longfellow’s poem setting forth all of the facts of that ride.  Alas.  It appears that Mr. Longfellow is the one who wasn’t really accurate.

The reason the British were marching on Lexington was to seize ammunition and arms held by the Americans whom they feared were planning to rise up against them.  Revere and Dawes were riding to Lexington and Concord to warn Adams and Hancock.  Revere was detained by British troops and told them that the Americans knew they were coming and would resist them, possibly in hopes of getting them to stand down.

One may disagree with Ms. Palin as to whether that was the importance of the ride.  That is a matter of opinion.  But her read on the facts is not incorrect.

Professor William A. Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection notes the memoirs of Revere himself, as pointed out by the Conservatives4Palin site. In it, Revere recounts an incident during the famous Midnight Ride in which he was accosted by a British military patrol and was interrogated about what his business was on the road. Revere indicated to his British captors that he had warned the countryside of the approach of British troops up the Lexington-Concord road, matching pretty much what Palin said.

"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 Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.

OFFLINE

http://factcheck.org/2011/06/palins-twist-on-paul-revere/

So not as wrong as some are making her out to be, but not as right as others are either. Reckon when it comes to Ms Palin, you're never going to have unbiased commentary from either side......

OFFLINE

Well...I'm not a big Palin supporer.  If she messed up, no biggee.  She probably wont run anyway.  Plus I like Bachman, Gingrich, and Cain much better.  

OFFLINE

gingrich is done. i think what palin is doing is strategically brilliant, and this is where she's most effective. i don't think she's running, she's just basically having her own personal tea party tour, and driving the left and the media into fits, because  she won't tell them where she's going ahead of time, so the left wing protestors can't organize. these very same people who see her as an idiot, and talk about how stupid she is, are clamoring into news vans and racing off behind her, clinging to her every word. i mean this is sport to them. they are just salivating over any opportunity they have to portray her in a bad light. before this revere thing, which she kinda got right, but stumbled through it, they resorted to reporting on what a traffic nightmare she was "causing," because news crews were clamoring not to lose her. she's not only raising awareness for conservative causes, but she's soaking up the media's negative publicity, and showcasing their insanity simultaneously.

OFFLINE

I dont think she's stupid.  I just don think she has enough experience to be President.  We've already elected 1 wet behind the ears person to the Presidency and you see what its gotten us.  I suspect she wants to be a Kingmaker or a VP candiate.  She'd be pretty good as the GOP head too.

OFFLINE

i will say one thing though. i just can't figure out why the left is so afraid of her, and holds her in such contempt. never in my life have i seen someone so besmirched by the media. i mean they REALLY hate her. i think it's that they tried to destroy her back in 2008, and it really had no effect on her. they didn't create her, so they can't destoy her? i dunno what it is, but you will see no favorable coverage on her from the left or mainstream media. ever. they act like she's the world's biggest joke, yet they keep her in the headlines constantly.

OFFLINE

I think they hate her because she champions traditional American Family Values.  Thats why NOW has not defended her from the blatant sexism that she has to endure.  She claims to be a Christan a well.  Shes also pro life.  The left hates that.

Plus she's a star.  The people seem to love her and media hangs on every word.  Mainstream media is praying she makes a gaff in a speech so they can ridicule her as being stupid.  Thats why they are pouring through her emails even now.  Blows my mind how much criticism she is deflecting from the people actually running against Obama.

IMO, if she ran, she most likey would win the nomination.  Easily.   But she is a polarizing figure and this would be the cruelest election in my lifetime.  I do like her...a lot!  I like her views.  I love her values.    But I worry about the fact that the only really important elected position she ever held...she quit.  And she's thin-skinned.  If she were president, would she panic and want to quit when the going got tough?

I'll certainly vote for her if he gets the nomination.  The only GOPer I wont vote for is Ron Paul (who is a dangerous libertarian loon imo).

OFFLINE

yeah the e-mails thing is just another indication of their obsession with her. the new york times and washington post even had their readers help them scour through her e-mails, and they found no dirt. maybe next they'll rummage through her trash.

OFFLINE

I'm not a Palin fan but I notice she has a tendency to say things incorrectly as what to what she really means. Which is one the reasons she's a bad politician because you have know how to assert yourself very good when you give speeches. I think she knows who and what Paul Revere really is. One other time she claimed on a tweet there weren't any countries that became democracies after a revolution. In this case it wasn't her that **** up. It was everyone who responded to it.

"what about the country you live in? dumb ****." and such. Well we're not really a Democracy are we!!! I guess the world is right about many yanks being dumb as many of us don't even know what kind of country this. A republic.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Douglas Shireman:
I'm not a Palin fan but I notice she has a tendency to say things incorrectly as what to what she really means. Which is one the reasons she's a bad politician because you have know how to assert yourself very good when you give speeches. I think she knows who and what Paul Revere really is. One other time she claimed on a tweet there weren't any countries that became democracies after a revolution. In this case it wasn't her that **** up. It was everyone who responded to it.

"what about the country you live in? dumb ****." and such. Well we're not really a Democracy are we!!! I guess the world is right about many yanks being dumb as many of us don't even know what kind of country this. A republic.

Countries that became democratic after a revolution? Simple, Ireland, we kicked the brits out in 1922 and we're a Republic.... :-p Off the top of my head, France did as well (well, eventually), and Turkey.