DescentBB

Oh yea, I forgot my smiley…Here’s two

woodchip wrote:Nice job on taking what she said too literally

..."too literally"? How the hell else is someone supposed to take it? It's a direct statement, not a metaphor, and it's practically incoherent to boot. A freakin' ten-year-old could be more articulate, and certainly more accurate.

Honestly, if this woman even gets herself nominated, we'll be the utter laughingstock of the entire planet, and any alien civilizations that happen to be listening in. And rightly so.

Heh, ok, because I take the charge of ass-kissing to heart. Anybody that knows me will tell you I say exactly what I think no matter if there's 30 in the room hollering NAY. I'm an opportunist at best

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:Nice job on taking what she said too literally

..."too literally"? How the hell else is someone supposed to take it? It's a direct statement, not a metaphor, and it's practically incoherent to boot. A freakin' ten-year-old could be more articulate, and certainly more accurate.

Honestly, if this woman even gets herself nominated, we'll be the utter laughingstock of the entire planet, and any alien civilizations that happen to be listening in. And rightly so.

Would you like me to 'splain it for you or would you rather reread her statement in a more figurative frame of mind.

Will Robinson wrote:I think you may be underestimating the degree of fear and loathing non-liberals have for Obama and the state we'll be in with another year of this economy. Those conditions will make him vulnerable to anyone who can tie their own shoe and promise new hope and change.

well, if Palin gets the nomination, I'll gladly post you the offer of a public wager on these pages.

Will Robinson wrote: I seriously doubt he's concerned with me one bit just like I seriously doubt I could change the mind of someone so invested in the Party like he is! He came here, by invitation, specifically to represent the one side and he's carrying out that chore quite well.

First off, if one gets to the point of 'concerned' over Interweb debate, it's time to get outside into the real world more. Second, while, yes I have worked for years on selected Dem campaigns and have served as a local party committeeman, I am hardly 'invested' in the Dems. I just went in that direction over the past two decades as the GOP collectively lost it's freaking marbles. By breeding and upbringing, I should have ended up as a Rockefeller/Romney sort of Republican. Reagan changed that, booting the party into bed with the right-wing nutosphere. Thus, I've spent twenty-some years working within the Dems as an overall moderate. Could I forsee a better alternative? Sure, but third parties and Independants face a near impossible task in most states, and my goal within politics is to help ensure policies I can at least live with,
and avoiding both of the major parties would be the first step to complete lack of influence. Finally, I was invited here, as far as I know, to provide the chance to discuss real stuff with people capable of doing so with a bit of intellect. I am not here to 'carry water' for any views beyond those of myownself......as you will find, no doubt, over time.....

Yeah. /methinks it's that myownself ★■◆● that's the problem.

Edit: Not you in particular Slick, just the sentiment.

woodchip wrote:Would you like me to 'splain it for you or would you rather reread her statement in a more figurative frame of mind.

Ahem.

Sarah Palin wrote:He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.

Paul Revere's letter wrote:I told him; and aded, 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.

Revere had warned the colonial militias, not the British, about a British force marching towards Lexington and Concord to seize rebel agitators and possibly destroy the armory in Concord, and Revere and his compatriot William Dawes were informed as to how the British would advance by lights in a church tower (not bells). Add to all this that Revere was caught and made only a small portion of the ride (as many as three dozen other riders have been identified), Palin's statement is an wandering, stuttering sentence, and she didn't even come close to "The British are coming"/"The Regulars are coming out".

Sarah Palin wrote:
He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.

Lol. She said that?

flip wrote:

Sarah Palin wrote:He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.

Lol. She said that?

She sure did.

Lol, ok, she's starting to look a little too much like some people I know

.

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Would you like me to 'splain it for you or would you rather reread her statement in a more figurative frame of mind.

Ahem.

Sarah Palin wrote:He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.

Paul Revere's letter wrote:I told him; and aded, 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.

Revere had warned the colonial militias, not the British, about a British force marching towards Lexington and Concord to seize rebel agitators and possibly destroy the armory in Concord, and Revere and his compatriot William Dawes were informed as to how the British would advance by lights in a church tower (not bells). Add to all this that Revere was caught and made only a small portion of the ride (as many as three dozen other riders have been identified), Palin's statement is an wandering, stuttering sentence, and she didn't even come close to "The British are coming"/"The Regulars are coming out".

It would seem Palin was more right than you:

"This is the case with the discovery of a couple of history texts which explicitly state what Palin claimed was the case: Paul Revere warned the British."

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz- ... sh-sort-of

I love the 1st paragraph

Their headline:

You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British? Well, he did. Now, who looks stupid?
And an excerpt:
"That the Republican non-candidate, in fact, knew more about the actual facts of Revere's midnight ride than all those idiots unknowingly revealing their own ignorance by laughing at her faux faux pas? How secretly embarrassing this must be, to be forced to face that you're dumber than the reputed dummy."

Complete story here.
And this:
"Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, 'Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate." ~ From the Boston Herald

And Cornell law professor William Jacobson writes:

". . . Revere did in fact tell the British that the colonial militias, who had been alerted, were waiting for them . . . Palin's short statement on the video was less than clear; that sometimes happens but the part of the statement which has people screaming -- that Revere warned the British that the colonial militias were waiting -- appears to be true."

So, in a way, Palin was correct

How does this help her? I watched the video clip myself. It reminds me of something I remember Abraham Lincoln saying : "I spend 10% of the time thinking what I'm gonna say and 90% of the time thinking what they are gonna say". He was actually preparing himself though, blame the cameras I guess.

woodchip wrote:It would seem Palin was more right than you:

"This is the case with the discovery of a couple of history texts which explicitly state what Palin claimed was the case: Paul Revere warned the British."

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz- ... sh-sort-of

Without opening the article, let me guess: the crux of their argument is that the American colonists were British citizens at this time. That does not fit with the statement that Palin made. She suggested that Paul Revere warned the British that the colonists were armed and that they couldn't take away their guns. She also said Revere fired warning shots and rang bells. None of that is true. At all. If Paul Revere were running around telling crap to the British Regulars, he'd've been captured and jailed even faster than he really was. The book mentioned in the article is hardly what I would called "scholarly," and, in fact, seems to be referring to a letter Revere wrote after the fact. Unless Paul Revere had access to Grover Cleveland's Presidential Time Machine, I don't think causality works that way.

A photo included with the article has the following caption:

article photo caption wrote:In Allison Stark Draper's book on Paul Revere's ride, she explicitly uses the phrase "Paul Revere Warns British Soldiers". However, what she meant by this was not what Sarah Palin meant.

I'm assuming someone asks her a question which is of course left out so her stumbling response is made to seem even more incoherent without the context of the question.
It sounded like she had two or more different trains of thought on the subject collide into a fragmented response where she is apparently giving an off the cuff answer about the significance maybe of the ride of Paul Revere? Big deal, she tried to phrase it in a way to tie that historic act of rebellion into the current rise in anger against the federal government and it ended in a collision of thoughts.

Honestly do you think a poorly executed attempt at spontaneous rhetoric is that big of a deal? It's not like she doesn't usually dish out the catchy criticisms pretty well so an air ball once in a while means nothing unless you are Tina Fey.

Is she the only one who can pull a Biden....hmmm...well answered that one myself didn't I? Maybe if she keeps it up they will change it from 'a Biden' to 'a Palin' but she has a long way to go to dethrone him.
At least she didn't banish the reporter from the WhiteHouse or refuse to answer because the question wasn't proofread by her team and the teleprompter wasn't set up....

Let's wait and see who all gets offered first. May be a test.

At least Palin answers question without a teleprompter

She sure doesn't get her point across well without it. Hell that may be why ALL the rest of them do.

Will Robinson wrote:I'm assuming someone asks her a question which is of course left out so her stumbling response is made to seem even more incoherent without the context of the question.

The question was, "What have you seen so far today and what are you going to take away from your visit?"

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I'm assuming someone asks her a question which is of course left out so her stumbling response is made to seem even more incoherent without the context of the question.

The question was, "What have you seen so far today and what are you going to take away from your visit?"

That doesn't help much without knowing what it was she was seeing...where were they and was it some kind of event or gathering about something related to the topic?

null0010 wrote:She suggested that Paul Revere warned the British that the colonists were armed and that they couldn't take away their guns. She also said Revere fired warning shots and rang bells. None of that is true. At all.

From the Wikipedia page on Paul Revere:

Revere was captured and questioned by the British soldiers at gunpoint. He told them of the army's movement from Boston, and that British army troops would be in some danger if they approached Lexington, because of the large number of hostile militia gathered there. He and other captives taken by the patrol were still escorted east toward Lexington, until about a half mile from Lexington they heard a gunshot. The British major demanded Revere explain the gunfire, and Revere replied it was a signal to "alarm the country". As the group drew closer to Lexington, the town bell began to clang rapidly, to which one of the captives proclaimed to the British soldiers "The bell's a'ringing! The town's alarmed, and you're all dead men!" The British soldiers gathered and decided not to press further towards Lexington, to instead free the prisoners and to head back to warn their commanders.

That's from Paul Revere's Ride by D.H.Fischer, Oxford University Press, currently rated 4/5 stars on Google Books.

So Palin wasn't exactly right, but she was a lot closer than I first thought she was, and IMO closer than the pop level history we learned in 2nd grade. Revere and the other men captured with him *did* warn the British, and there *were* warning shots fired and bells rung as a result of Revere and the others who rode with him. It doesn't sound to me like she was making stuff up. It sounds to me like she'd read some version of this account, and was a bit off in her retelling.

Sarah Palins problem is she doesn't know how to give non-anwsers like most politicions do. I would love it if our congressmen were all given random History quizes by the Media so that we could all mock their anwsers.

Gooberman wrote:Sarah Palins problem is she doesn't know how to give non-anwsers like most politicions do. ...

Yep. She needs to go to the David Lee Roth school of interviews:

"I always give three answers to my interviewers. The first one is: Okay, you're asking me this--but I'm gonna talk 'bout whatever the @##% I want. The second answer is: Before I answer that question let me say this, then I'll talk about whatever the @##% I want. And the third one is: Oh, I see what you're asking...but I'm gonna talk 'bout whatever the @##% I want. It's like 'open forum with Dave." - David Lee Roth

I'd like to string up every last person who is adept at giving non-answers. But I suppose it's par for the course when others are asking leading or driving questions...

LOL @ the David Lee Roth quote.

I think that's exactly like every free thinking American should think.

Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.

Problem for the left now is, the newsy's are shown to be the drooling idiots and Palin the knowledgeable one. The reporters keep making gaffs like this and Palin will start looking like a Rhodes Scholar compared to them. As such Palins approval ratings will start climbing.

woodchip wrote:Problem for the left now is, the newsy's are shown to be the drooling idiots and Palin the knowledgeable one. The reporters keep making gaffs like this and Palin will start looking like a Rhodes Scholar compared to them. As such Palins approval ratings will start climbing.

What strange alternate reality do you live in where Palin sounds like a Rhodes Scholar? She stammered out a confused, tangled, undiagrammable sentence that just happened to include a few blubs of fact, like Paul Revere's name, and the fact that he was riding a horse to warn someone or other.

It reminds me of essay exams where students just vomit random facts onto the page without context or support in the hopes that they'll pass the class.

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Problem for the left now is, the newsy's are shown to be the drooling idiots and Palin the knowledgeable one. The reporters keep making gaffs like this and Palin will start looking like a Rhodes Scholar compared to them. As such Palins approval ratings will start climbing.

What strange alternate reality do you live in where Palin sounds like a Rhodes Scholar? She stammered out a confused, tangled, undiagrammable sentence that just happened to include a few blubs of fact, like Paul Revere's name, and the fact that he was riding a horse to warn someone or other.

It reminds me of essay exams where students just vomit random facts onto the page without context or support in the hopes that they'll pass the class.

Your description of her jumbled answer is really a stretch. Certainly she fails the grammar test but it isn't very hard at all to understand the message she was trying to convey. You even had to remove the target she identified from the warning Revere issued in her answer to make it seem more confusing...

The purpose of his ride was to warn the American colonists. He warned the British after he was captured. That answer would fail any college-level Intro to American History course.

null0010 wrote:The purpose of his ride was to warn the American colonists. He warned the British after he was captured. That answer would fail any college-level Intro to American History course.

did he warn the British yes or no???

woodchip wrote:At least Palin answers question without a teleprompter

Yeah, she just blurts out nonsense because her brain hasn't engaged fast enough to THINK OF SOMETHING COHERENT FIRST. So her mouth goes running full tilt spewing hot air because she's compelled by her massive ego to be the headliner because she just can't help herself. In fact, I think her brain is stuck in neutral, permanently, if she has one that is.

But alas woody, we may find out even more insipid details about her "leadership" abilities.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

But not to worry woody, Obama has effed up so bad and has continued so many of Bush's ideas, like the Patriot Act, 2 expensive wars plus adding a few more and has kept so many Bush insiders at important posts, he now looks like a Republican. So he will probably lose to Palin, if the birdbrain wins, because the all the demoralized lefties will drop him like a hot potato and stay home. We're screwed if either of them wins in 2012.

http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/ ... triot-act/

CUDA wrote:

null0010 wrote:The purpose of his ride was to warn the American colonists. He warned the British after he was captured. That answer would fail any college-level Intro to American History course.

did he warn the British yes or no???

I would call it bragging (or perhaps foolishness), but yes, he did inform the British of what he estimated the strength of the colonial resistance to be that night.

null0010 wrote:The purpose of his ride was to warn the American colonists. He warned the British after he was captured. That answer would fail any college-level Intro to American History course.

or, if one believes the several High School teachers I've heard interviewed, or the two I actually know, she would have failed a Secondary level American History exam on that question.

callmeslick wrote:

null0010 wrote:The purpose of his ride was to warn the American colonists. He warned the British after he was captured. That answer would fail any college-level Intro to American History course.

or, if one believes the several High School teachers I've heard interviewed, or the two I actually know, she would have failed a Secondary level American History exam on that question.

and by what the history experts say, your teachers should be fired for incompetence.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:At least Palin answers question without a teleprompter

Yeah, she just blurts out nonsense because her brain hasn't engaged fast enough to THINK OF SOMETHING COHERENT FIRST. So her mouth goes running full tilt spewing hot air because she's compelled by her massive ego to be the headliner because she just can't help herself. In fact, I think her brain is stuck in neutral, permanently, if she has one that is.

But alas woody, we may find out even more insipid details about her "leadership" abilities.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

What is entirely fascinating is the depth of scrutiny Palin is undergoing. Any other Rep. contenders getting their emails gone over by the ghetto dumpster divers from the DNC in a like manner? Anyone able to dive into Obama's emails from the last 10 years? Oh of course not as they'd be labeled as racists. The fear the left have of Palin has become palpable and painful to watch.

"Fear"? Lulz.

In a rare but memorable gaffe on the stump, Barack Obama declares at a campaign event in Oregon, "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."

During an appearance on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," President Obama causes a stir by making an off-hand joke comparing his bowling prowess to the Special Olympics.

In his first press conference after being elected, Obama says he already spoke with all the living presidents, and then clarifies that by adding, "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances."

While campaigning in Missouri, Joe Biden calls upon State Sen. Chuck Graham to "stand up," despite the fact that he is in a wheelchair.

Joe Biden gets his historical facts mixed up by claiming that Franklin D. Roosevelt got on television in 1929 to talk about the stock market crash, despite the fact that he wasn't president yet and only experimental TV's were in use at the time.

This attack on Palin is asinine. EVERY Politician Gaffs. every word a politician say is scrutinized. sometimes rightfully sometimes not. Palin's seem to be looked at more than others, maybe because she's a Conservative in an increasing liberal based media, maybe it's because she's a Woman. maybe it's both. Maybe it's because the left is afraid of her. and make no mistake they are afraid because if they weren't this wouldn't be a news worthy story. I don't know, just the fact that they are combing over her emails like ravenous vultures looking for any sliver that they could use to discredit her is proof of that.
attack the persons policies don't ad-hominem attack the individual.