brvheart 1,752 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politi...orical_account/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...he-british.html Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politi...orical_account/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...he-british.html that's a stretch and three quarters. Yes, after his original mission failed, he may have said some things to individual captors. He was not supposed to get caught. That was not the point of his ride. Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/06/hist...t-about-revere/ Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 that's a stretch and three quarters. Yes, after his original mission failed, he may have said some things to individual captors. He was not supposed to get caught. That was not the point of his ride.Yeah, exactly. She specifically said he was running around ringing his bells to warn the british. he "warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free"There's no way this line fits with the bit about him telling his captors the british forces were coming, and there is even less of a chance that Palin had ever even heard this obscure detail in order to repeat it. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politi...orical_account/ Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British.“I suppose you could say that,” Leehey said. “But I don’t know if that’s really what Mrs. Palin was referring to.”McConville said he also is not convinced that Palin’s remarks reflect scholarship.“I would call her lucky in her comments,” McConville said.So...It should also be pointed out that, as SJ's cracked link explains, it wasn't really "Paul Revere's ride," it's just that his name rhymed with 'Listen my children and you shall hear." Many other people out on the warning ride didn't get captured (as Revere did), and they weren't actually riding around yelling and ringing bells. They tried to be as quiet and sneaky as possible, so as not to alert those people loyal to the crown that the rebels were mobilizing. Her story of Paul Revere running through town ringing a bell and warning the British that we were gonna kick their asses is simply false. Wikipedia says:Riding through present-day Somerville, Medford, and Arlington, Revere warned patriots along his route — many of whom set out on horseback to deliver warnings of their own. By the end of the night there were probably as many as 40 riders throughout Middlesex County carrying the news of the army's advance. Revere did not shout the phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols, and because the colonists themselves were British. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 So...It should also be pointed out that, as SJ's cracked link explains, it wasn't really "Paul Revere's ride," it's just that his name rhymed with 'Listen my children and you shall hear." Many other people out on the warning ride didn't get captured (as Revere did), and they weren't actually riding around yelling and ringing bells. They tried to be as quiet and sneaky as possible, so as not to alert those people loyal to the crown that the rebels were mobilizing. Her story of Paul Revere running through town ringing a bell and warning the British that we were gonna kick their asses is simply false. Wikipedia says:I have no opinion on any of this, because the entire thing is retarded, and I seriously can't believe you guys care about anything that Palin says... BUT I'm not sure quoting wikipedia is a good way to win the argument. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I had an insight. First, some background: eyeroll *eyeroll* :EYEROLL: eyeroll. :eyeroll: *eyeroll* eyeroll hahaha... eyeroll. [eyeroll] eyeroll. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 eyeroll *eyeroll* *eyeroll* eyeroll eyeroll eyeroll. eyeroll. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Now, the insight is that this is the implied content of every one of brvheart's posts even if he doesn't explicitly say it. You can just go ahead and insert an *eyeroll* at the start of each of his posts and it always reinforces the meaning. For example, compare the last one in this thread: I have no opinion on any of this, because the entire thing is retarded, and I seriously can't believe you guys care about anything that Palin says... BUT I'm not sure quoting wikipedia is a good way to win the argument.to*eyeroll*I have no opinion on any of this, because the entire thing is retarded, and I seriously can't believe you guys care about anything that Palin says... BUT I'm not sure quoting wikipedia is a good way to win the argument.See?! Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 BUT I'm not sure quoting wikipedia is a good way to win the argument.I also quoted the guy from the Paul Revere House (from your link), which frankly I think is a good way to win the argument.Also, wikipedia cites everything they write, or at least they try hard to. Decrying somebody's use of a wikipedia link or wikipedia quote is pretty silly - wikipedia is nearly as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-ac..._3-5997332.htmlAnd that was 6 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I also quoted the guy from the Paul Revere House (from your link), which frankly I think is a good way to win the argument.Also, wikipedia cites everything they write, or at least they try hard to. Decrying somebody's use of a wikipedia link or wikipedia quote is pretty silly - wikipedia is nearly as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-ac..._3-5997332.htmlAnd that was 6 years ago.The point is that one thing we can definitely learn from this whole situation is that NOBODY ****ing knows what Paul Revere actually was thinking on a night in the late 1700's, except for him and the people that were there and talked to him. The two links I posted were from journalists from the Los Angleles Times and the Boston Herald. Two papers that all you guys would normally LOVE to cite. But now that they are saying something pro-Palin, you guys are all dismissive and even post links from Wikipedia. The people on Wikipedia don't know what they're talking about, just like the people they are quoting don't know what they're talking about. How about you guys read a book written by Paul Revere or someone there that night, and then I'll believe you're not talking out of your asses. (like Palin was) Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Now, the insight is that this is the implied content of every one of brvheart's posts even if he doesn't explicitly say it. You can just go ahead and insert an *eyeroll* at the start of each of his posts and it always reinforces the meaning. For example, compare the last one in this thread: toSee?!It seems like you went to a lot of work for.... ? Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The two links I posted were from journalists from the Los Angleles Times and the Boston Herald. Two papers that all you guys would normally LOVE to cite. But now that they are saying something pro-Palin, you guys are all dismissive and even post links from Wikipedia.Two things: First, the Boston Herald is a right-leaning newspaper. The Boston Globe (admittedly left-leaning) is the paper I would normally love to cite. And second, the Paul Revere expert from the Herald article disagreed with the notion that Palin got it right. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Whatev's, hater. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 *eyeroll*It seems like you went to a lot of work for.... ?see?! Link to post Share on other sites
Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 see?!So great.At first I thought you were just going to point out that he was wildly inconsistent in how he presents the "eyeroll," but now I see it goes much deeper than that. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 see?!That totally wasn't the tone of that particular post. WAY off. Link to post Share on other sites
Skeleton Jelly 2 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 *eyeroll*That totally wasn't the tone of that particular post. WAY off.I like this new game. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Dammit. Now I can't post in here. (I think the eyeroll should go on the end of this one... make it a pissy eyeroll. kthx.) Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 hahaha! Link to post Share on other sites
solderz 0 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 The eye roll is the new rick roll Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I mean can we all admit she should not be President officially or really hold any office ever again? Anyone with a lick of sense would take 5 f-ing minutes to look up the actual Paul Revere story so as to not get it completely wrong a 2nd time. She's a quitter and she doesn't believe in preparation. It's sad because she appeals to a large segment of America and she could do a lot of good if she wasn't a complete moron.To be so confidently wrong is a sight to behold. Warning the British was the opposite of what Paul Revere did!I've been listening to the normal hate on Palin about her comments and mostly dismissed them as more hate for the sake of hate, I mean if she's so dumb, why are the leftist news people so worked up over her?So I just read about this event. I was trying to find out why she brought up Paul Revere etc. Seems she had just toured the Paul Revere house, got a tour by the curator and was given insight into the real story behind the ride of Paul Revere that was not able to fit into the poem that people like you get your facts from. After touring Paul Revere's house she was asked what she thought of it.She nailed a perfect conclusion from the history about the British being on their way to take the guns away from the Bostonian. Paul Revere was warning them that if they try to take our guns, they will find resistance.So she was 10x more correct about the history than all the democrat hate machine that has no clue about history unless it rhymes.And she shaped her comment in a manner that her base would understand....our gun rights are, and have been an important part of who we are as a country.It's a lot like the Rosa Parks story, we all learned in school that she was a tired old black women who was just tired of the bad law. The facts are she was a plant by a group looking to justify their planned strike of the bus to shine a spotlight on the unjust laws. But the schools teach a different story that is not true, we just don't care because the Jim Crow laws were bad and had to be stopped.Sarah Palin is bad and has to be stopped...at least that's the only conclusion I can draw from the rabid hate from the democrats. I fear for the day when the democrat party is forced to run on something besides hate...the self-realization may cause serious mental repercussions that many of those poor thinking sheep will find unattainable. Their last 12 years have been hate for Bush, hate that fueled their base and gave them the only thing to grab onto. I think they need Sarah to hate because they can't release their hate. If Sarah doesn't run, the need for a focal point of their hate will be severe. They may accidentally turn on Obama ( which is what they should be doing before he destroys your party )I do love the irony of the Feminist having to force themselves to be silent while a woman is attacked for being a woman because they sold their souls a long time ago.I hope Sarah Palin runs now. I will proudly cast my 4-5 votes for her. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I've been listening to the normal hate on Palin about her comments and mostly dismissed them as more hate for the sake of hate, I mean if she's so dumb, why are the leftist news people so worked up over her?Because she's so dumb. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 She nailed a perfect conclusion from the history about the British being on their way to take the guns away from the Bostonian. Paul Revere was warning them that if they try to take our guns, they will find resistance.Correct. Revere's real goal was to warn the British that... the British were coming.. with warning shots... and bells... Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Correct. Revere's real goal was to warn the British that... the British were coming.. with warning shots... and bells...Go ahead..continue with your democrat blinders on.Sarah is coming...you guys are going to under estimate her appeal and Obama is going to lose and go down as the worse president in history.I for one look forward to voting for Sarah Palin 4-5 times. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now