Sarah Palin History Lesson on Paul Revere!!

[TXgolfer]

And really, who cares if she made a stupid error? Same with Obama, who cares that he said 57? These people are generally among the brightest people we have. I doubt any of these politicians has an IQ below 110. They speak all the time, in sometimes difficult situations. When they say something wrong, we make it appear they are somehow stupid. If we base intelligence on minor flubs, I could have a field day around here making fun of all the posts with errors in spelling, syntax, grammar, and the like.

I once gave a speech where I intended to say placebo....but instead said placenta.... There were alot of confused people.

It happens

 

[deafskeptic]

I once gave a speech where I intended to say placebo....but instead said placenta.... There were alot of confused people.

It happens

I can imagine.

 

[kokonut]

I once gave a speech where I intended to say placebo....but instead said placenta.... There were alot of confused people.

It happens

The placenta effect?

 

[Daredevel7]

In a 1789 Paul Revere letter maintained by the Massachusetts Historical Society ,in his original language, about the ride and warning to British troops:



Massachusetts Historical Society: Online Collections

Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account. You betcha she was right!
Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account - BostonHerald.com

LOL.... from your own link:

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.

 

[saywhatkid]

LOL.... from your own link:

Gotta love the dedication to keep her in the good graces of the public eye.

 

[Beowulf]

I once gave a speech where I intended to say placebo....but instead said placenta.... There were alot of confused people.

It happens

But you got a standing ovulation anyway.

 

[kokonut]

LOL.... from your own link:

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.

How would he know? Just an opinion but the fact is, she got it right while others were howling on how wrong she was. She's not the one with eggs on her face.

 

[kokonut]

LOL.... from your own link:

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.

In that same link:

But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct, said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”

He agreed as well.

Are you saying hers wasn't an accurate account?

 

[saywhatkid]

Are you saying hers wasn't an accurate account?

Are you saying that she studied this particular topic so deeply as to enlighten us all? That it was not an unintended goof? Really?

 

[Daredevel7]

How would he know? Just an opinion but the fact is, she got it right while others where howling on how wrong she was. She's not the one with egg on her face.

Are you really serious? I'm being genuine here. Do you honestly believe that is what Palin meant? That she didn't mean the whole ride through town, ringing bells, warning the Americans "The British are coming!" part of the ride? But rather the part where he got caught by the British?

 

[kokonut]

Are you saying that she studied this particular topic so deeply as to enlighten us all? That it was not an unintended goof? Really?

Red herring.

All the howlings were exclaiming on how wrong she was that Revere never warned the British. Did you not note the title of the LAtimes page: "Sarah Palin claims Paul Revere warned the British"?

Fact is, it's true that Revere warned the British of what to expect. Yes? No?

Remember, she already that day visited Paul Revere's house and probably learned a bit of history lesson right then and there and when reporters asked afterwards, she explained it correctly. And they thought it was wrong. Turns out, she was right.

Move along.

 

[jillio]

Are you really serious? I'm being genuine here. Do you honestly believe that is what Palin meant? That she didn't mean the whole ride through town, ringing bells, warning the Americans "The British are coming!" part of the ride? But rather the part where he got caught by the British?

We all know that she has not studied history to the degree that she is capable of such in depth analysis.

 

[kokonut]

Are you really serious? I'm being genuine here. Do you honestly believe that is what Palin meant? That she didn't mean the whole ride through town, ringing bells, warning the Americans "The British are coming!" part of the ride? But rather the part where he got caught by the British?

Remember....

Thursday her "One Nation" traveling road show stopped in Boston, where the former Alaska governor, her parents, her husband, and little Piper visited Paul Revere's house, the Old North Church, and Bunker Hill.

She probably learned her history right then and there about Revere's ride. And correctly gave the right historical account to reporters about him warning the British. I guess that's too bad because they were the ones who should have taken the time to visit Paul Revere's house and learn a bit of history, too.

 

[deafskeptic]

We all know that she has not studied history to the degree that she is capable of such in depth analysis.

That has been apparent for quite a while. :P

 

[saywhatkid]

*shrugs*

Why worry? She's not running for president.

I'm more worried about the guy claiming we have 57 states.

How would he know? Just an opinion but the fact is, she got it right while others were howling on how wrong she was. She's not the one with eggs on her face.

Red herring.

All the howlings were exclaiming on how wrong she was that Revere never warned the British. Did you not note the title of the LAtimes page: "Sarah Palin claims Paul Revere warned the British"?

Fact is, it's true that Revere warned the British of what to expect. Yes? No?

Remember, she already that day visited Paul Revere's house and probably learned a bit of history lesson right then and there and when reporters asked afterwards, she explained it correctly. And they thought it was wrong. Turns out, she was right.

Move along.

So, you went from dismissing it (first quoted post) to exhaling a sigh of relief (second quoted post) that someone had found the "missing link" that possibly exhonerated her, to going on the offensive (third quoted post) and trying to dismiss my question.

Do you think she knew she was right, or was it a goof?

 

[deafskeptic]

So, you went from dismissing it (first quoted post) to exhaling a sigh of relief (second quoted post) that someone had found the "missing link" that possibly exhonerated her, to going on the offensive (third quoted post) and trying to dismiss my question.

Do you think she knew she was right, or was it a goof?

I think Koko just wants to troll.

 

[jillio]

Remember....



She probably learned her history right then and there about Revere's ride. And correctly gave the right historical account to reporters about him warning the British. I guess that's too bad because they were the ones who should have taken the time to visit Paul Revere's house and learn a bit of history, too.

So you are saying, despite having a college degree and considering herself qualified to hold the highest office of this country, that she did not know about Paul Revere until she visited the monument to him?

You know what, that may be pretty accurate.

 

[kokonut]

So, you went from dismissing it (first quoted post) to exhaling a sigh of relief (second quoted post) that someone had found the "missing link" that possibly exhonerated her, to going on the offensive (third quoted post) and trying to dismiss my question.

Do you think she knew she was right, or was it a goof?

She was right. She already visited Paul Revere's house and learned a bit of history there. She recounted it correctly to the reporters when asked. Historical experts agree, she was right. Like I said, maybe if reporters had taken the time to visit Paul Revere's house and learned a bit of history first, they wouldn't have wounded up with eggs on their face.

 

[deafskeptic]

So you are saying, despite having a college degree and considering herself qualified to hold the highest office of this country, that she did not know about Paul Revere until she visited the monument to him?

You know what, that may be pretty accurate.

Heh I think that's the gist of it.

 

[jillio]

She was right. She already visited Paul Revere's house and learned a bit of history there. She recounted it correctly to the reporters when asked. Historical experts agree, she was right. Like I said, maybe if reporters had taken the time to visit Paul Revere's house and learned a bit of history first, they wouldn't have wounded up with eggs on their face.

So, you think it is perfectly acceptable for her to be completely uninformed regarding a significant part of this country's history, and still consider her qualified to run for President.

Stop now, Koko. You are only making it worse for yourself.