14 comments on “Permanent Records

  1. There you again: looking at the world from liberal eyes. Well, I just listened to an interview on NPR of all places that essentially backed up Palin in the essentials of what she said. No, Paul Revere was not specifically warning the British, but she pretty much on the money with her comments.

  2. Sorry Josh, but Palin was dead wrong. Revere was captured by a British patrol while trying to advise the militia and Revolutionary leaders that “the regulars” were coming.

    There was no shooting.

    There were no bells.

    His mission was NEVER to “warn the British”.

    I also listened to that NPR piece, and it DID not state that she got it right.

    After Revere was captured, he tried to bluster that there were 500 militia troops on their way.

    Palin was dead wrong, and doesn’t have the humility to admit that she was wrong.

  3. Palin knew what she was talking about? Rubbish.

    “…He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms, uh, 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 and we were going to be armed…”

    I don’t even know what she said. I don’t think even Sarah knows what she said. How can you assess “accuracy” of such a disjoint & incoherent statement?

    Here. Let’s try to distill some “thought particles” out of this at least. “Paul Revere… riding his horse through town… ringing bells… firing warning shots… warning the BRITISH forces… that we’re free, armed, and dangerous…” Perhaps we should add some flares & other pyrotechnics for even greater effect…?

    Paul Revere’s (and his associates’) OBJECTIVE was to warn AMERICAN colonists that British forces were in the area. Succinctly put. Plain & simple. To suggest otherwise is intellectually and professionally disingenuous.

  4. Andre, the finding from the link you provided from the Boston Herald are pretty disingenous. The historian in question appeared to misunderstand what Palin said and referred to statements that Revere made to the British after he was captured. Palin was referring to Revere’s purpose for riding a horse that night, not statements he made after being captured. She claimed Revere got on his horse to warn the British, while ringing bells and firing a gun. Not a single history professor has ever said that was an accurate description.

  5. What bothers me about the Palin thing is not the Paul Revere information. I’m not a historian, so I’ll leave it up to them and Palin to decide in their own minds what she meant and whether it was correct. What bothers me about her (and always has) is the victim card she always pulls. To her, every question is a “gotcha” question. “What do you read?” “What have you learned from this trip?” “How about this weather we’re having?” She makes EVERYTHING a gotcha question, unless it’s something from Hannity or Van Susteren.

  6. You liberals are hilarious! Your hate of Palin is so blinding that you refuse to accept the chair of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston…interviewed on one of your most liberal radio stations!

    I bet that if Palin said the sky is blue you would instinctively take an opposing view regardless of the facts. But if Obama said the sky were green, you’d lap it up like pigs to slop.

    • Are you using your intelligence to make your point? Or are you just going off your blind love and support for Sarah Palin?

      Please listen to her comments again. Does what she said resemble the Paul Revere story in history books? To you?

      She basically said that 2 + 2 = 5. The professor said, well she is using math, and those are numbers, and “5” contains the number “4” as part of it. So yeah, she’s got her math right.

  7. My thoughts aren’t directly at Sarah Palin (I’m not sure why the convo is focus squarely on her). I make my comments in a general sense. You can believe in people all you want and STILL admit they made a mistake. You can support a leader and still call them on a lapse of judgment. You can acknowledge disappointment, and still support a person, idea or party. Whether it’s Weiner, Palin, Obama, or Bush, our country needs voters who are a lot more real, and a lot less “star struck.”

    • “To err is human. To admit it means you lose your fan base.”

      Not necessarily, it doesn’t. If people love you as much as they claim, they’ll stick with you…errors and all.

  8. I once read Dan Quayle’s book (believe it or not). In it, he blames his handlers for the “potatoe” incident getting out of hand. He didn’t blame them for his mistake; he couldn’t. But he effectively diverted the criticism away from himself for blaming his handlers for not warning him that the press was about to mock him mercilessly.

    Now rather than trying to pass they blame, they just get in your face and tell you that they didn’t make a mistake. Yes, Iraq was filled with WMD that was a threat. Yes, the mission was accomplished. Yes, Paul Revere rang bells and fired warning shots.

    When I read that some people were trying to change Wikipedia based on what Palin said, I thought “revisionist history.” Or should I say “herstory.”

  9. I’m not a huge politics person, I’ll admit. But I will say that regardless of Mrs. Palin’s abundance or lack of intelligence — she is clearly all about herself and her own ambitions. She has spent her time since being picked by McCain to build a small little fortune at the expense of people’s emotional support. She’s not stupid, she’s smug. She knows that with every appearance, every comment, she’s setting herself up for MORE attention. And people are eating it up. So I ask you, who is REALLY the fool?

  10. Hahahaha! This is mighty rich. The minute Palin opens her mouth, the critics jump all over her, claiming she is grossly ignorant of American history. Then, when the historians start coming in saying that she was essentially right about the church bells, the shots, and the Revere warning to the Brits, now she is only lucky and still an ignoramus who has trouble putting a coherent sentence together. Man, this anti-Palin business never ends. Even when the critics are shown their own unfamiliarity with the actual history, they still try to do a verbal kneecap job on her. I am afraid that, if Palin ever does disappear from the scene, all these critics are going to wind up with a severe case of the DT’s. I don’t care what one thinks of her politics; but she certainly does know how to get the media and the critics twisted into knots. Fun to watch. She’s turned those media people into little puppies begging for table scraps.

  11. Hey Dre,
    I can’t comment on the Weinermeister without laughing too hard to type, but I have a suggestion for Sarah. The next time the media jumps all over some statement you made, attacks your family, runs through your e-mails, or makes misogynistic and sexist comments about your attire or your intelligence, simply ask them, “What is it about me that you hate and fear so much?” Then ask them if they would like to talk about the debt, the sinking economy, the destabilization of the Middle-East or any other actual real issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s