Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,686
- 126
She probably thinks that the world was created 6,000 years ago and that we don't have unicorns because they were left off the arc. I would't rely on her for historical expertise.
She probably thinks that the world was created 6,000 years ago and that we don't have unicorns because they were left off the arc. I would't rely on her for historical expertise.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
It's always amusing to watch you turn cartwheels insisting that the mainstream media is not biased.
Start with the politically required answer and work backward - it's the progressive logic on virtually everything.That said, it stretches truth to the breaking point to insist that Palin is factually correct. Yes, he warned the British, and yes, the British confiscated guns, but those are clearly ancillary to the purpose of his famous ride. She could have said he rode because his horse needed the exercise with as much accuracy, since horses do need regular exercise.
Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,686
- 126
dabuddha
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 19,579
- 17
- 81
It's always amusing to watch you turn cartwheels insisting that the mainstream media is not biased.
Yet when pressed your only real evidence is that most journalists self identify as liberal.
That in itself isn't evidence except to those who already have their minds made up.
Politicians often make statements contrary to THE FACTS. Most often some media outlet will call them for it, they can either
A. Backtrack and admit they made a mistake
B. Double down and insist that the media is biased
Answer B is the only option for the modern GOP and they've been doing it for 25 years - and been pretty successful at it. The attack the media strategy is the best card in the GOP's deck and provides them nearly limitless cover to spread as much FUD as they can.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I suggest you read the letter that Paul Revere wrote himself and get back to me.
She may have screwed up in giving her answer and she may have given the right answer by accident, but the fact is that she did give the right answer. Revere did in fact warn the British that the Americans were ready for them.
If you ask me a question and I guess the right answer the fact that I guessed the answer doesn't change the fact that it was the right answer.
Wrong.
She said Revere was warning the British *by ringing bells and sending warning shots while riding his horse*.
warned the British that they werent going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as hes 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.
That has nothing to do with 'warning the British when he was in custody by telling them there was resistance'.
One is words he says in custody, which she said nothing about; the other is 'ringing bells and firing warning shots'.
Even correcting her grammar so that it was others ringing the bells and firing warning shots while Revere rode rather than him doing it, it's still wrong.
There's no evidence, either, that those activities were 'warn the British' rather than to warn the citizens. Hence the cry, "the British are coming".
Not "You British are warned, the citizens are coming".
PJ's own article says the experts don't think she knew what she was talking about, and happened to stumble across a similar bit of history.
This is just another typical disinformation attempt by PJ, who got quite excited to find a 'Palin was right!' angle he could try to fool people with.
Do we even need to get into the 'British were there to take their guns' angle Palin is trying to use as an appeal on the 'Democrats want to take your guns' line?
She said Revere was warning the British *by ringing bells and sending warning shots while riding his horse*.
warned the British that they werent going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as hes 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.
That has nothing to do with 'warning the British when he was in custody by telling them there was resistance'.
One is words he says in custody, which she said nothing about; the other is 'ringing bells and firing warning shots'.
Even correcting her grammar so that it was others ringing the bells and firing warning shots while Revere rode rather than him doing it, it's still wrong.
There's no evidence, either, that those activities were 'warn the British' rather than to warn the citizens. Hence the cry, "the British are coming".
Not "You British are warned, the citizens are coming".
PJ's own article says the experts don't think she knew what she was talking about, and happened to stumble across a similar bit of history.
This is just another typical disinformation attempt by PJ, who got quite excited to find a 'Palin was right!' angle he could try to fool people with.
Do we even need to get into the 'British were there to take their guns' angle Palin is trying to use as an appeal on the 'Democrats want to take your guns' line?
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
She still got the wrong answer. Revere didn't warn the British the way she said he did riding on his horse. False, wrong answer. Pretty straight forward.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Bells were run in Lexington to alert the colonials.
That is how Concord initially became alerted and the outlying towns were alerted. Not by riders.
The British could hear the bells as well as the colonials and knew what the purpose was for. Alert the locals
This scenario had been planned for.
It was known the British would come looking for Hancock and Adams as wells as the weapon caches.
It was not known before hand how the British would leave Boston which wold determine the overall route.
That is how Concord initially became alerted and the outlying towns were alerted. Not by riders.
The British could hear the bells as well as the colonials and knew what the purpose was for. Alert the locals
This scenario had been planned for.
It was known the British would come looking for Hancock and Adams as wells as the weapon caches.
It was not known before hand how the British would leave Boston which wold determine the overall route.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Actually the impending British raid was known impending for about a month or so.
The then insurgent leaders had already dispersed their weapons cashes all over the area weeks before the raid. What was not know was the exact route(s) the British would take.
And that job of exact route warning was entrusted to not only Paul Revere, but to a variety of others too. And of all of them, only Prescott made it all the way through to Concord without being slowed. It was a giant advantage for Prescott because he was a resident of Concord, and could choose little known routes to evade British agents.
In terms of the British, they had a sound military plan, but because of advance warnings it was nothing but a busted play. There was no concentrated Arms cache to be found. And there was no bragging or taunting by Revere after he was captured, he deliberately inflated insurgent numbers, as nothing but a self serving bluff that worked. The Brits released him but gave him a tired horse, who could blame them, formal hostilities had not yet broken out.
Nor is Palin correct in her implication that Revere was trying to intimidate the British. Only later was the implications of the tactics obvious, that the Brits faced an insurgency war. With tactics little different than facing the Taliban today. The classic occupying power dilemma, a strong kick ass military that can occupy and control any given place, but far far too few troops to be strong everywhere. And every where the British were strong, our forefathers were smart enough not to contest.
But the key to the victory was British arrogance, when they lost the support of the ordinary American colonists, its was just a matter of time.
The then insurgent leaders had already dispersed their weapons cashes all over the area weeks before the raid. What was not know was the exact route(s) the British would take.
And that job of exact route warning was entrusted to not only Paul Revere, but to a variety of others too. And of all of them, only Prescott made it all the way through to Concord without being slowed. It was a giant advantage for Prescott because he was a resident of Concord, and could choose little known routes to evade British agents.
In terms of the British, they had a sound military plan, but because of advance warnings it was nothing but a busted play. There was no concentrated Arms cache to be found. And there was no bragging or taunting by Revere after he was captured, he deliberately inflated insurgent numbers, as nothing but a self serving bluff that worked. The Brits released him but gave him a tired horse, who could blame them, formal hostilities had not yet broken out.
Nor is Palin correct in her implication that Revere was trying to intimidate the British. Only later was the implications of the tactics obvious, that the Brits faced an insurgency war. With tactics little different than facing the Taliban today. The classic occupying power dilemma, a strong kick ass military that can occupy and control any given place, but far far too few troops to be strong everywhere. And every where the British were strong, our forefathers were smart enough not to contest.
But the key to the victory was British arrogance, when they lost the support of the ordinary American colonists, its was just a matter of time.
So in a desperate attempt to nitpick every little thing Sarah Palin says... something something something nobody cares.
Next someone will bash a politician for saying they'll search "to the ends of the earth" because the earth doesn't actually have ends
Next someone will bash a politician for saying they'll search "to the ends of the earth" because the earth doesn't actually have ends
Do you really think Palin literally meant a guy on a horse was going to get off his horse then go ring some bells? Of course not. Don't be silly. Other people ring bells and shoot things. He's just riding a horse telling people to ring bells and shoot things. Stop trying to pick apart small shit nobody cares about.
So in a desperate attempt to nitpick every little thing Sarah Palin says... something something something nobody cares.
Next someone will bash a politician for saying they'll search "to the ends of the earth" because the earth doesn't actually have ends
Do you really think Palin literally meant a guy on a horse was going to get off his horse then go ring some bells? Of course not. Don't be silly. Other people ring bells and shoot things. He's just riding a horse telling people to ring bells and shoot things. Stop trying to pick apart small shit nobody cares about.
Audible range: 20 feet.
Size of colonial American town: much larger than 20 feet
Early towns were pretty damn big. You can't warn people just by ringing a dinky little hand bell. Entire towns are warned by ringing large church bells and firing guns. Keep in mind guns in those days were single shot so it's unlikely a man was riding a horse and trying to reload a shitty single shot gun to warn people
We will stop caring what she says when we find someone else to hassle. What happened to Charlie Sheen? Is he still alive? Did that spears chick grow her hair back yet?
HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 36,592
- 28,666
- 136
So where in Paul's letter did he say he was warning us the British were coming to take our guns?
BTW - I thought you were tired of all the Palin threads
Audible range: 20 feet.
Size of colonial American town: much larger than 20 feet
Early towns were pretty damn big. You can't warn people just by ringing a dinky little hand bell. Entire towns are warned by ringing large church bells and firing guns. Keep in mind guns in those days were single shot so it's unlikely a man was riding a horse and trying to reload a shitty single shot gun to warn people
That's why he was riding a horse around. Plus you only had to warn one person to warn the rest of the town. You're really going to try to argue about this aren't you? Well I have better things to do.
Bateluer
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2001
- 27,730
- 8
- 0
Sarah Palin's answers sometimes remind me of Philip Fry's questions to the What If Machine in Futurama.
Fry: What if I never fell into that freezer-doodle and came to the future-jiggy?
Professor: That question is less stupid, though you asked it in a profoundly stupid manner.
Fry: What if I never fell into that freezer-doodle and came to the future-jiggy?
Professor: That question is less stupid, though you asked it in a profoundly stupid manner.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter