Slashdot Mirror
Palin Fans Deface Paul Revere Wikipedia Page
An anonymous reader writes "Fans of Sarah Palin were found to be changing the article on Paul Revere to make it fit their idol's view that Paul Revere was not warning the American colonists that the British were coming, but rather warning the British were not 'going to taking away our [guns]'."
"going to taking away our [guns]'"
Sounds like a Palinite OK.
Hey editor guy, howsabout you give us a tiny bit more background information on what's going on. Like maybe mentioning where this Palin revisionism started? Was it a speech she gave? An interview? Her blog or Twitter account?
how they no it was sarah palin "fans"? could have been opposite
to be a supporter of Sarah is a brainer, if you had a brain you would not be a supporter.
because, seriously. Wikipedia is not the reference to end all references. If some dummy changes it and it's wrong, either someone will change it back, or (hopefully) the avalanche of other sources on Paul Revere will remain correct.
12:50 - press return.
Besides the poor English in the summary if you check Wikipedia's history for this entry you probably won't find much to indicate what is claimed...hmmm...act reactionary very much?
I find it hard to believe... on the one hand, out of millions of idiots, it seems that sure that a few could go off the edge and completely sink their own candidates campaign (not that it's even started yet).
It seems more likely that there are people out there to make supporters look bad... not that they need a lot of help. Palin herself was out defending what she said as being "accurate."
I'd believe either way.
I still don't even know why Palin is news.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Unfortunately those fans don't seem to read books. The 1984 parallel of editing the past to fit the political 'truth' of the moment is lost on them.
There's stuff about it on the discussion page
Don't they know that Conservapedia is their home on the internet, free of the lies and corruption of the liberal filth?
Why don't you check the revision history? Find on page? Really?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
is it not about time someone put the STFU on this Palin thing nothing but a mouth piece on legs
I have $20 that says it was opponents that did this. Why? Because this is how politics is played.
CmdrTaco,
Please show us the evidence that this was done by Palin fans and wasn't just a false-flag edit war designed to make Palin supporters look bad. (Not that they need much help in that department though.)
The title to the linked article is 'Palin Fans Trying to Edit Wikipedia Paul Revere Page'
Being fans of Palin it is perfectly understandable and likely they got confused and gave up.
I'm no Palin fan, but this theory doesn't pass the sniff test. It is more likely her enemies seeking (needlessly) to cause more reason for scorn.
Have politics ever really focused on social issues, rather than the people(be they bonehead or genius) who support or dismiss them?
If Palin runs, it'll be a double edged sword. Most of her base will vote for her and dilute the vote. On the other hand if she wins, it will be bad. It's not so bad that people get things wrong; it's when they refuse to admit it in the face of evidence. That makes for a dangerous combination of people who have power.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
WTF!?
Last time i visited LGF it was on par with Free Republic crowd.
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
This seems to be one of the offending edits. The point earlier was that any edits had been cleaned up by the mob. Wikipedia is working. Order has been restored to the galaxy.
Re: Find of page? Really? -- Do you know a better way of describing the menu that pops up when you type "/" in Firefox (or Vi, which is where the keystroke originates)? Instead of reading the whole page, I did this quick search for a target word "gun" and found no references to any of Palin's antics.
Pretty funny how she's actually right yet people on the left still can't admit it and it all must be some big conspiracy
http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353
It's not about describing what you did, it's about how silly what you did was. All the information you want is in the discussion page, obviously. That's what it's there for.
The issue was not with your use of the term "Find on Page", it was that you somehow expected your search to return some sort of worthwhile result. It seems pretty obvious that if the vandalism has reached the news, it's long since been corrected on Wikipedia. If you want to see the vandalism, look at the fucking revision history. If you want to see the debate, read the talk page. If you want a quick summary of what happened, RTFA.
Palin actually has fans?
Maybe it's time to call in those Vogon construction ships after all.
Why doesn't it pass the sniff test? There are idiots of every political persuasion; some of them are Palin fans who might have thoughT to change Wikipedia's article to their version of the "truth". We don't know for a fact that they are her fans. Perhaps the headline should have been less definite about that.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Palin camp simply draws more attention to themselves with this, regardless of how far from reality they are. They could have just as well said Revere made his ride on a Harley as the first member of Operation Rolling Thunder, it would have worked just as well for them.
I also enjoy that the "little green footballs" page has a link to buy a life-sized cardboard cutout of Palin. I didn't bother looking to see if you can order it as the bikini-automatic-weapon Palin, or if you have to order only the power-mini-skirt Palin.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
some guy using the name TimothyHorrigan made one change that was almost immediately reverted.
I'm no Palin supporter, but this isn't news, it's just sensationalism.
Wish I had mod points today.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
LA Times backs up Sarah Palin:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html
And so does Boston Herald:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
Hope my prof will let me rewrite it with the new facts.
Sarah Palin fans claim Paul Revere fans defaced Sarah Palin Wikipedia page, to fit the view that Sarah Palin ran for governor by supporting Alaska's federally-funded $442 million "Bridge to Nowhere," despite Palin's insistence to the contrary.
Stay tuned for an updated list of books Sarah Palin doesn't like that have no place in your library!
On the one hand, it's possibly Palin supporters who are trying to promote Palin's mistakes. This makes Palin look stupid. On the other hand, it's possibly Palin detractors who are trying to publicize Palin's statements. That makes Palin look stupid.
Whoever is doing the edits, one thing is clear. Palin's statements make her look stupid.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If she and her followers can do this to the life and legend of Paul Revere, just imagine what a Palin presidency would do to the Constitution of the United States.
You're all being more idiotic than Palin... Here's Revere alerting the British (though no mention or arms):
"I observed a wood at a small distance, and made for that. When I got there, out started six officers on horseback, and ordered me to dismount. One of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me where I came from and what my name was: I told him. He asked if I was an express: I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston: I told him; and added 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." -Massachusetts Historical Society's Collections, First Series, Vol. V pp. 106ff.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
I just checked the Paul Revere page and there don't seem to be huge sections devoted to:
- Paul Revere in Animé.
- Paul Revere in Manga
- Paul Revere in Western Animation
- Paul Revere in Comics
- Paul Revere in Graphic Novels
Truly, an e-atrocity. I assume the Palinistas deleted them all.
Why do people pay so much attention to her? Her coverage is way out of proportion to her actual influence. Ignore Sarah Palin. If she polls highly, then go and cover her, but look:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rudy-giuliani-leads-republican-field-cnn-poll/
Giuliani, Romney, Palin, Paul, Cain... 16%-10%
How much coverage is Giuliani or Romney getting? Paul or Cain? In proportion to Palin? Why is this also-ran attracting the same media attention as if Queen Elizabeth and the reanimated corpse of Michael Jackson and Xenu toured East Coast tourist spots?
It's bizarre. Palin is an also-ran. Please try to ignore this media virus.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How the hell is this news for nerds? How many times has the Palin or Bush or Wikipedia pages been defaced? Don't recall it being trumpeted here...
At least a pretense of impartiality would be welcome...
In one breath she says the government shouldn't make decisions that individuals can make for themselves (like gun ownership), and then in the very next breath she says that only the government should decide who you an and cannot marry, and when it is ok to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Despite this obvious contradiction, she insists that her religious views do not rob her of her objectivity.
She frightens me.
This is no more a good example of "Wikipedia working" than people cleaning up after graffiti vandals is a good example of society working.
The title to the linked article is 'Palin Fans Trying to Edit Wikipedia Paul Revere Page' Being fans of Palin it is perfectly understandable and likely they got confused and gave up.
Not their fault. Over centuries liberals intentionally decreased the readability of English texts by introducing foreign words.
There seem to be a lot of people making fun of her for what she said. You should know that she did NOT say that he didn't ride out to warn the colonists (which is implied by some of the above posts), but did say that he warned the British that we were preparing for them, which is a fact. He was captured by British soldiers and warned his captors that he had roused the militias and there would be armed citizens coming together to repel the Brits. Also, local historians have weighed in on this in agreement.
Palin got it wrong, every student of history knows that Paul Revere refers to how the Beastie Boys met....
Uh, no. Graffiti is generally not created on surfaces specially prepared for graffiti, but on other people's property. The "graffiti" is the whole point of Wikipedia. Some is good graffiti, some is bad graffiti, but the graffiti artists themselves graffiti over the bad graffiti.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
They've overlooked that he starred in Mad About You and Beverly Hills Cop, in particular.
Paul Revere
by The Beastie Boys
Now here's a little story, I've got to tell
About three bad brothers, you know so well
It started way back in history
With Adrock, M.C.A., and me, Me Mike D,
They had a little horsy named Paul Revere
Just me and my horsy and a quart of beer
Riding across the land,and kicking up sand
Sheriff's posse on my tail cause I'm in demand
One lonely Beastie I be
All by myself, with nobody
The sun is beating down on my baseball hat
The air is gettin' hot, the beer is getting flat
I was lookin' for a girl, I ran into a guy
His name is M.C.A., I said, "Howdy", he said, "Hi"
He told a little story, that sounded well rehearsed
Four days on the run and that he's dying of thirst
The brew was in my hand, and he was on my tip
His voice was hoarse, his throat was dry, he asked me for a sip
He said, "Can I get some?"
I said, "You can't get none!"
Had a chance to run
Pulled out his shotgun
Quick on the draw, I thought I'd be dead
He put the gun to my head and this is what he said,
"Now my name is M.C.A., I've got a license to kill
I think you know what time it is, it's time to get ill
Now what do we have here, an outlaw and his beer
I run this land, you understand, I make myself clear."
We stepped into the wind, he had a gun, I had a grin
You think this story's over but it's ready to begin
Now, "I got the gun, you got the brew
You got two choices of what you can do
It's not a tough decision as you can see
I can blow you away or you can ride with me" I said,
I'll ride with you if you can get me to the border
The sheriff's after me for what I did to his daughter
I did it like this, I did it like that
I did it with a whiffleball bat
So I'm on the run, the cop's got my gun
And right about now, it's time to have some fun
The King Adrock, that is my name
And I know the fly spot where they got the champagne."
We rode for six hours then we hit the spot
The beat was a bumping and the girlies was hot
This dude was staring like he knows who we are
We took the empty spot next to him at the bar
M.C.A. said, "Yippe Yo, you know this kid?"
I said, "I didn't.", but I know he did
The kid said, "Get ready cause this ain't funny
My name's Mike D. and I'm about to get money."
Pulled out the jammy, aimed it at the sky
He yelled, "Stick 'em up!", and let two fly
Hands went up and people hit the floor
He wasted two kids that ran for the door
"I'm Mike D. and I get respect
Your cash and your jewelry is what I expect"
M.C.A. was with it and he's my ace
So I grabbed the piano player and I punched him in the face
The piano player's out, the music stopped
His boy had beef, and he got dropped
Mike D. grabbed the money, M.C.A. snatched the gold
I grabbed two girlies and a beer that's cold.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
He just said the same people who contribute to Palin pages positively are the same ones editing the Paul Revere page. This rules out people trying to screw her reputation, this rules out trolls. This does not rule out supporters and random lunatics, though.
We're talking about Sarah Palin. She doesn't appear to read much. She doesn't appear all that intellectually curious. She doesn't even seem to have read much of the Constitution (and its amendments). And she seemed to have difficulty knowing what, precisely, is the role of VP while she was running for VP.
And yet ... she has stumbled upon a rare bit of history (a letter from Revere, a possible citation from a book that's been out of print for a century)? Colour me ... perplexed.
So, she was either makin' stuff up and got lucky. Or she's taken in a bit of trivia that is not widely known outside of academia.
Damifiknow.
Paul Revere was not warning the American colonists that the British were coming, but rather warning the British were not 'going to taking away our [guns]'."
In AD 1775 War was Beginning.
John Hancock: What Happen?
Paul Revere: Somebody set us up the cannon!
British: All of your forts are belong to us! Ha ha ha ha!
Samuel Adams: Take off every HORSE!
Paul Revere: For great justice!
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
People write stuff on Wikipedia every day.
The Boston Herald is a notorious right-wing paper. Even the article in the Herald says if you stand on your head and cross your eyes she "sorta coulda" be correct. His comment to the British came AFTER he was captured, when the jig was up. It wasn't why he was riding in the first place. These are the kind of arguements you got from OJ Simpson's murder trial defense.
The author of the LA Times article (Andrew Malcolm) is also a baiting conservative writer. Like most writers of his ilk he was brought in to upset readers and to feed conservatives appetites and show they have both sides in their editorial pages. Right-wing media like Fox News doesn't do this so I guess the left doesn't have the same desperate need to be pandered to.
If you honestly believe Revere was out to warn the British soldiers then you really need to try reading actual history books.
Look at the contributions of this user. He describes the Revere comment as Palin's "gaffe". Clearly he does not actually think that Palin's comment was true. He put it on Paul Revere's page because he decided to have a few laughs at the expense of Palin by abusing the reliable sources policy (by claiming that since Palin said it, Wikipedia has to, under its reliable sources policy, treat it as truthful). There were other people who did mistake him for being serious, but he himself carefully worded his comments in the talk page; he didn't say Palin's remark was true; he said that it needed to be put in as a reliable source.
The idea that this was put there by some guy who's a fan of Palin and (presumably) is stupid enough to think the statement was correct, is wrong. This was an anti-Palin troll, put there by Wikipedia editor who most probably is anti-Palin, and at a minimum was certainly aware, by his own words, that Palin's statement was a gaffe.
You have missed this story completely. Try this from the LA Times, dipshit. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html
I knew it!
Those crazy Palin fans! Running around and defacing everything! Those soccer moms are rabid and out of control!
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Not their fault. Over centuries liberals intentionally decreased the readability of English texts by introducing foreign words.
Yes... I still can't believe they keep adding foreign words. Shit like "My Pet Goat" still trips me up every time.
She said Paul Revere on that night warned the British that an armed militia was forming, and to back off. The leftist media slammed her as ignorant. Then it turns out that yes, Paul Revere did warn the British that night, it's right there in his memoirs.
Just like recently she said not to "party like its 1773" just yet. She was slammed for her ignorance that the revolution happened in 1776, one well-known blogger writing "WTF happened in 1773?!" But she was referencing the Boston Tea Party, which indeed happened in 1773.
They want to nail her so bad they show their own ignorance in trying. They are just trying to hard to perpetuate the "Palin is dumb" meme. This is almost as bad as them deriding her for saying she can see Russia from her house, which she never even said.
Not that I like Palin, I could never vote for a religious fundamentalist Intelligent Designer, but it's funny to see this rabidly mad group trying to show its superiority, and in the process showing its inferiority -- to her no less.
Life imitates art.
There's nothing wrong with hating people who try to falsify history, nothing good can come of it.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
And yet there are plenty of people, even here, who are arguing that Palin was correct. Or at least correct enough. Well she had bits there were close to correct. So why don't y'all stop picking on her!
Now *thats* spin!
I'm not a "Palin fan," but I have to correct the left-wing knee-jerks when they are wrong. From Paul Revere's own memoirs, this is what he told British troops who had stopped him:
"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."
Technically, he did warn the British then. So editing the Wikipedia page isn't revisionism, it's about users contributing information, which is what Wikipedia is all about, isn't it?
Yes, politics == hate. That's the point of politics. To use the resources of the majority/powerful to enhance/continue/effect the oppression of the rest.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Explain your comment, then. How does this amount to Wikipedia "not working?" I explained that it appears to be working as intended, how do you think it should work? And don't hold back, I've got no horses in this race, I haven't edited a Wikipedia article in years.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the British missions to Lexington and Concord in fact *specifically* to seize supplies in those towns, in particular military supplies?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338392/Battles-of-Lexington-and-Concord
So I don't know what stupid edits were done 'reinterpreting' what he said on wiki - Paul Revere was most definitely just announcing their method of advance - but the POINT that he was announcing the approach of the British "to take away privately-owned guns" is entirely reasonable.
-Styopa
aOh snap!ddiHow humourous! :):wq
Man I hate VI.
which is totally what she said
Yeah, I highly doubt it. Being conservative, I've noticed that a majority of conservatives seem to be a bit older (40s and up); a lot of them probably don't even know how to edit a Wikipedia page, let alone deface it. Nothing wrong with that; it's just demographics. On the other hand, I've noticed that the left-wing seems to be quite a bit younger and naturally a bit more tech savvy. Plus, I've seen several Wikipedia entries slanted from a neutral bias to more of a left-leaning one; I don't recall ever seeing the opposite.
I'm going to call BS on this one.
hmmm. http://bostonherald.com.nyud.net/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
"But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct.."
“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.”
"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.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
I bet she couldn't pass the citizenship exam they give immigrants
...of Monte Christo, anime style, I really am curious to see what they'd do to Paul Revere.
He'd probably be flying a small spacecraft to warn the interplanetary colonies about the evil Space British.
I am amazed by the number of morons that like palin. She is the stupidest repub scumbag of the bunch and that is saying something. Why would anyone with even half a brain think she is anything more than a clueless bimbo? Now that she is in AZ I hope I get a chance to flip the b*&%$ off to her face!!
As they say: Politics is economics by other means.
Is there any conservative that you like?
Ahem, we were all British when Revere, Dawes, etc. rode out.
"The Regulars are out" is what he is reputed to have warned the locals about.
I guess I'm not surprised, if it's true, that Palin doesn't know her American history; she certainly has demonstrated a poor grasp of the Constitution.
What a f*cken doofus she is. The British are coming. ROTFLMAO.
History, it's not just for breakfast any more.
And here I was, until just now sure that history was always written by the WINNERS :-)
animal who was groomed for the spot. What did Palin have over Obama before the election? Actual experience being a government executive, and having fairly won at least one election as a non-incumbent. Yes, the presidency was the first non-incumbent election Obama ever won without first having the viable competition eliminated (Alice Palmer, Jack Ryan), letting him run effectively unopposed.
And then he basically spent his only two years in the US Senate running for President.
As ill-qualified as Palin is, she's still far better than Obama.
On the plus side, I'm pretty sure that 1984 didn't have versioning
Nor does Wikipedia if revisions get suppressed due to alleged copyright infringement or defamation.
It would, of course, be ideal for the correct writeup to always be on the default page
Are you talking about the pending changes proposal? If so, define "correct". Pending changes has already caused problems on Wikibooks, where changes to a page can take weeks to get reviewed.
...she was speaking out against enhanced interrogation. She was relating how Revere spilled the beans when they stuck a gun in his face, poor man.
rj
...that both wings of the Republicratic Party have more than their fair share of morons and be done with it?
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Uh, except that edit appears to be deliberately adding in a contemporary quote (attributed to Palin in the text of the update) in what is likely an attempt to sensationalize the issue. That quote, if anything, should be on the Palin page as it adds nothing to the historical account of the event. Huffington Post, Little Green Fooseball or whatever other sites are getting page views from this are just as likely to have made the edit to create the story as anything else.
Fact is that Palin was correct -- the Powder Alarms (of which Lexington and Concord were one) were about removing powder and arms from the surrounding countryside, so that disarmed towns could not rebel. Paul Revere had two missions, the most important to warn Hancock and Adams, but only in that their capture was one of the objectives of the of the powder alarm.
Her next statement
"Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along."
Do you disagree with that?
Can someone point out which revisions are the Palin fans'? I went back a day comparing changes between contributors. I only see legitimate updates and one who - based on his other contributions - I wouldn't consider a fan. I would love to see examples. Except for a few scattering blogs and /., I haven't seen any major news outlets pick this up which I would've expected.
Considering English is a Germanic language, Or do you mean the readability of English with all those French and Latin words that have been added to our old German over the past 1000 years? I'm guessing you would be happier if you could find a 'pure, untainted' language to speak. Why don't you try Esperanto? What would the founding fathers of the U.S.A. say about this? I'm not sure, but after they had their plantation foreman beat the slave that just tried to run away, fucked the housemaid slave and then sat on the porch to think about it, I'm sure they would agree that they like the fact that teabaggers are trying to get back to their value system.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
and did warn the British that they would not be able to take away the colonists' guns?
Weren't they pouring water down his lungs at the time? I guess he rang the bell once for "yes" twice for "no".
I think of it more as the postmodern encyclopedia.
Take a look upthread - someone did the checking, and the IPs responsible for the Revere edits correspond to those favorably modifying Palin's Wiki entry.
Paul Revere was captured and did warn the British that night.
Not that I would let facts get in the way of your Palin bashing. Surely that 70% of Americans that are Conservative are all stupid? Right?
Most people become more conservative as they grow older. But your vast knowledge and superior judgement surely has no room for any consideration that you may be wrong... So I'll defer.
I'm more interested in the problem on the discussion page dealing with authoritative sourcing.
The issue seems to be:
Wikipedia wants to be a neutral source and just report what is asserted by trusted sources. The Palin-camp wants to include quotes from her, cited in mainstream media, on this page (same as you would quote and source a historian on this same page who wrote something in a published book).
This is interesting as it puts horns on the dilemma for wikipedia about authoritative. I can't just write a blog article on my personal website, post a link in wikipedia and call it a source. But if the LA times quotes my blog, I can use that as a source. But when someone who is not an expert is quoted in the media b/c they are sensational (in the sense of worth quoting right or wrong, in terms of newspaper sales), the notion of authoritative source kind of goes out the window.
Not sure how wikipedia will cope with this - or whether it's just a corner case that we can ignore most of the time?
Demographics are meaningless in this case. Let's say you're right (I have no idea whether you are or not) that, "a majority of conservatives seem to be a bit older (40s and up); a lot of them probably don't even know how to edit a Wikipedia page. . ."
How many people does it take to deface a Wikipedia page? So, even if it's true that most the Repubs have no idea how to change a Wikipedia article, it only takes 1. Or maybe a small handful.
It's sort of like arguing "The majority of muslims aren't radical terrorists, and don't know how to fly planes, so radical islamic terrorists can't be responsible for destroying the World Trade Center towers."
The first statement being true doesn't make the second statement true. They are logically disconnected.
If you're 20 and conservative, you don't have a heart.
If you're 40 and liberal, you don't have a brain.
That's what she said!
Best Slashdot Co
First we have the political climbing illiterate Palin. She isn't intending to create revisionist history, its just that she is dumb as a stick, never read anything more complicated than candy bar wrappers and comic books, and doesn't know anything. Its just that when people ask her to open her mouth, rubbish comes out, and in order to prop her up, they go about trying to change real facts in order to fit her fuzzy account of them. "Oh, changing it on Wikipedia, that will make it true..." NOT! The sad truth is that the GOP is seeking out a moron with a following (much like George W. Bush). Someone they can rally around, but ultimately control. Major corporations want a puppet they can control. Sarah, following George, is their puppet at large. Qualifications include 1) illiteracy, 2) poor grasp of history 3) inability to form logical thoughts or reason. 4) ability to get large groups of people (like minded kin folk) to say "yup, that'sa my horse"
Pick apart regular speech as if you are opposite someone defending a thesis so you can ignore the larger truth.
For some reason, partisans never seem to do it with the speech of their own.
Been to the 57th state lately?
You can't cram for New England history and come here and spout what you know and try to bluff your way through it with word salad. There are 391 years of it here, and we know all of it.
You either admit you don't know or we're going to ridicule you until you cry yourself to sleep.
And the next person who says that somehow this is a Christian nation like Sarah is wont to do, I am going to take a copy of the Touro Synagogue letter from George Washington *and* a copy of the Bloudy Tenent, roll them both up, and shove them down his neck.
--
BMO
I respectfully disagree. Hating people is always wrong.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The revolutionaries knew well that the British had orders to go to find stolen cannons and other munitions, but not when. Revere was warning of this precise thing and warned along a precise path with a precise destination (which is where the stolen cannons and other arms were held). The mission was to warn that they British were coming to take away the stolen munitions. This is not the same as taking away legally acquired guns, but it is true to say that the British were coming to take away guns, since they were. This version of history is what they teach in the national parks around where the incident occurred. It is also fairly well documented.
On one hand we have the epitome of what a government leader is supposed to be in this country, the citizen legislator, someone with a regular life who decided to take on the calling of office (in her case, initially replacing a corrupt Republican mayor, then a corrupt Republican governor). Having such a person gives us a good probably that something might change instead of continuing the will of the political powers.
On the other hand you have the career politician, groomed from early on to punch all the right tickets for a career in politics, such as the Ivy League education (In which he migh have gotten all Cs as far as we know, he won't let the records be released). Such a person guarantees the status quo who will obey the will of his party's elite.
I'll take the citizen legislator any day, even if I don't like her.
"And excuse me , unopposed? You may have heard of the Clinton family before, he had to run against Hilary "
Obama opposed Hillary Clinton in his run for President? Interesting.
There's nothing wrong with hating people who try to falsify history, nothing good can come of it.
which is why we hate cpu6502, since he tries to falsify history by pretending he isn't really commodore64_love
Nothing entertains me more than to watch the lefties freak out at all things Palin.
All entertainment aside, why is this story /. worthy? Where is the nerdiness of it?
would burnish his legacy by practicing a little contemporary revisionist history...
It would be interesting if there were any corresponding personal accounts by actual British soldiers involved, but I assume that's already been looked for.
My opinion is just that any system that has to have someone actively involved in cleaning up after vandalism cannot be said to be "working". A "working" system is one where vandalism could not happen in the first place, but informative edits could still me made without issue.
Wikipedia is reactive - it can only react to events of vandalism, it cannot prevent them. That is why I don't consider this to be an example of Wikipedia "working", and the fact that this is how it is intended to be does not mean that that should be considered to be "working" either - its just another way to redefine success when talking about a failure.
Politics == hate
Politics == religion.
You're talking more about ideology there.
Politics as a concept is just whatever way a group of people figure out to run a society.
Ideology is when some people think they have all the answers in one tiny little playbook, and begin to live in their own reality bubbles.
Anyone who self labels "liberal" or "conservative" or "libertarian" or "whatever" is in a bubble. You have to be to think that one ideology's answers work everywhere under all conditions.
is that to her and her avid flock, Truth and Intellect are to be shunned as liberal impediments to their 'christian' racism and greed.
That's better than most Palin smears.
The one you missed was the Army bit. She did not say they are on a direct mission from God. In the context of her son being deployed, she said "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country â" that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."
She prays that it is a godly mission, does not state it is. This is pretty standard for any big undertaking made by a Christian. The translation for a non-Christian such as me would be to hope that it is a just mission.
I believe the perps meant to target the Obama wiki since he is on record as anti-constitution on gun ownership!
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
I am surprised no one has looked at Palin’s education background.
Early Education-Sandpoint Idaho- Idaho is now 51 for education funding and Sandpoint, Bonner County is among the lowest in the state. A logging backwater full of malcontents similar to Palin
College - North Idaho Community College in Coeur d'alene (Kootenai County) Really a glorified high school
University Of Idaho – A glorified community college.
To the extent that they will allow. IOW, she doesn't agree with warmongering in the Bush mold.
The point is that most of the derision of Palin is unfair. Either they portray her factual statements as false, portray her speech with false motivation out of context, and even flat-out make up things.
Me, I just can't stand her voice. Although I like outdoorsy TV, I lasted through only one minute of her TV show because of it. Even Obama's stiff teleprompter recitals are easier to listen to.
C'mon, politics aside, does anyone really believe that?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
There's nothing wrong with hating people who try to falsify history, nothing good can come of it.
Like that fake story about this dude who rode aroung and warned people "the British are coming"? Sorry, but Paul was nabbed before he could make much of the ride, and his horse was taken from him, so it never really happened. Some other dude did the deed. But the poet didn't like the sound of "The Midnight Ride of Samuel Prescott.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
President Josiah Bartlett is rolling over in his grave.
which is why we hate cpu6502, since he tries to falsify history by pretending he isn't really commodore64_love
Hate him if you want, but if you do, at least do it for the right reason. He has openly stated in the past that he has used a few different Slashdot accounts over the years, including commodore64_love. There's no "falsifying history" involved.
That Wiki means "What I Know Is..."
And what most people know is BULLSHIT.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Look at your own guy:
He wonders how to translate something into the "Austrian" language (there is none).
He gives Region 1 DVDs to the Queen as a present (need Region 2).
He thinks Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois (Illinois has a border with Kentucky, and Arkansas doesn't).
He thinks his parents got together after the Selma marches (he was three years old during the marches),
He thinks people in Iraq and Afghanistan mostly speak the same languages (mostly, Iraqis speak Arabic and Kurdish, while Afghanis speak Pashto and Farsi).
And it doesn't help that his VP is a laugh a minute.
The title is clearly a poorly punctuated printing of a quote from Yoda, when asked by a journalist how he would act.
Yoda, of course, considers the supporters of Sarah Palin to be merely an inconvenience. To resolve the situation, he would use the power of the Force to communicate across time with Paul Revere, then armed with that primary source he would write an authoritative history on Wikipedia.
Yoda, as usual, put this more succinctly, if rather enigmatically; "Palin fans? Trying. To edit Wikipedia, Paul Revere page!"
At one point on his ride, he was stopped by the British. This is what he said about it:
"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. "
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Read what she actually said.
Before and after the question and that statement in response, her point was consistent. She didn't take the the "do you have foreign affairs experience" bait, and kept it generalized.
But, yes, she did have more experience than Obama anyway. Any governor of Alaska must deal with the Russians over issues of oil, gas and fishing.
Or do you mean the readability of English with all those French and Latin words that have been added to our old German over the past 1000 years?
Over the past 1000 years? No, 923 years only. That's when the liberals started to teach liberals education and other baloney. The US has been going downhill ever since.
-------
"Teach our childrens reading, riting, rithmatic or give me death!"
Paul Revere (wikipedia, new edition)
One is just that she's funny. She is kind of "too dumb to be true." She says the stupidest shit and that amuses people. I mean let's be straight, a lot of news is effectively gossip/entertainment even when it is "hard news". People like shit like that, it gets ratings, hence she gets airtime.
Another is that many liberal types would really, really like her to run for president. She has -NO- chance which is of course what you'd really like from your opposition. So they want to pay attention to her to keep her relevant. Nothing helps make for an easy win like an incompetent opposition.
Damn them all to hell those stinking fucking serfs.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
As I recall the history, the Brits were coming to take the powder (and probably some muskets) from the magazine in the Concord
area. Yeah, Revere did not give the warning (got arrested; one of the others got thru but his name didn't fit RLS's later rhyme) but
the episode was about control of arms (ammo anyhow). The comment is not totally daft.
No wonder you were marked troll. Didn't you know German comes from the English that was first postulated by Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin? Just ask Palin or any of her Tea Party followers.
Never mind being aware of history.
She is ridiculous but sadly many people in this country actually seem to believe and support her.
It is a sad thing but the fact is that we had a moron for president for eight years as well- it should come as no surprise that her revisionist version of history also has supporters.
Bush's fanciful version of current affairs also had fans.
Why is is that whenever a Republican does something dishonest, or stupid, which happens constantly, some asshole has to come here on Slashdot and shout:
Teh Democrats Did It Too!!!111!(R)(TM)
Give three concrete, credibly documented examples. I keep seeing conservatives make these claims, but never see them cough up the data.
The book that examines real history, not what Sarah Palin said, is David Hackett Fisher's Paul Revere's Ride, available on Amazon.
Everyone knows Revere from his famous ride. Except, even that, is a historical whitewashing.
Revere was better known at the time for his arrogance and incompetence that led to America's greatest naval disaster until Pearl Harbor: The Penobscot Expedition of 1779.
The British were helping defend colonists who wanted to remain loyal. The Americans couldn't let them secure the area.
The Americans turned up on July 25th with 40 ships, almost 2,000 seamen and marines, 100 artillerymen and 870 militia with the fleet mounting 350 guns. Against them stood 700 men and three sloops mounting 50 guns. The British didn't even have proper defenses: the earthworks had only been built waist high when the Americans turned up.
The Americans artillery under Revere refused to attack without the ships attacking first. The ships refused to attack without the artillery going first. The 870 militia, despite initial successes, then got pinned down without support from their artillery while the British finished building their earthworks.
On August 13th, three weeks later, a six ship British relief force, bringing the British up to 9 ships and around 250 guns to the American 40 ships and 350 guns, arrived. The armed American ships proceeded to flee as fast as they could, leaving the transports to be destroyed. Even then, they didn't get away. Those that weren't destroyed ran aground and were set on fire by their crews.
In the aftermath, the commodore was blamed and stripped of his command. Revere was not officially reprimanded but was so heavily criticized by the other officers for his difficult personality and how his attitude caused much of the defeat that he actually requested his own court marshal to try and clear his name - a request that was denied.
Keep in mind that this was 1779. Revere's reputation wasn't rebuilt until Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem "Paul Revere's Ride." Longfellow wasn't born until 1807, 28 years after the event. The poem was written in late 1860 and first published in 1861, almost a century later.
So, Palin can claim Revere all she likes. The reality of it is he's a man who died in relative disgrace having, through his incompetence and difficult personality, contributed to the deaths of hundreds of American troops and America's most crushing naval defeat for over 150 years. It was only through historical reconstruction - the writing of a poem a century later and the near total removal of the Penobscot Expedition from US history books - that he gained his fame. If Palin wants to do more of the same, how's that any different?
I don't understand where the controversy on authoritative sources is here. The LA Time is most likely authoritative as to what Palin said. But, Palin is certainly NOT authoritative as to what Paul Revere might have said or done.
I'd like to see Palin violated by a rabid Moose.
After reading her words the day she said them, I checked the wikipedia page to see whether she was correct. Think how easy it is to fool people. Just change the wikipedia on the day after you tell your lies. Or google bomb a fake history site. Average folks won't double check the fact.
This is all a bit unfair to Mrs. Palin though. She stuttered out the whole sentence, and you're shocked she made an error?
In that state, even the meanings of plain words and context can't get through.
"I, PAUL REVERE, of Boston, in the colony of the Massachusetts Bay in New England; of lawful age, do testify and say; that I was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren, of said Boston, on the evening of the 18th of April, about 10 o'clock; when he desired me, ''to go to Lexington, and inform Mr. Samuel Adams, and the Hon. John Hancock Esq. that there was a number of soldiers, composed of light troops, and grenadiers, marching to the bottom of the common, where there was a number of boats to receive them; it was supposed that they were going to Lexington, by the way of Cambridge River, to take them, or go to Concord, to destroy the colony stores.''
The stores being referred to here are guns, gunpowder, and shot. And their suppositions turned out to be correct: Gage and his troops were indeed heading to seize and destroy those stores.
Moving past your mistakes of fact and on to your mistake of philosophy: facts only have to hurt you if you let them. Learning unexpected new truths, and more importantly figuring out which biases had led you to believe old falsehoods, are good things. The less you fight the process, the less it hurts.
The real rider that warned that the british were coming was the man named Israel Bissel, he rode the farthest and actually warned that british were coming Paul Revere didn't even ride far and based on where he was he could have only warned 2 or 3 people. the poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow is what started the fraud, since Henry knew Paul and didn't know Israel. Israel Bissel rode 345 miles over 4 days warning everyone along the path giving warning given to him by General Joseph Palmer. Paul Revere story is a fraud and the legend never happened. And Paul Revere NEVER uttered the line "the british are coming" the entire myth surrounding Paul Revere is a legend based on a simple poem by the famous Longfellow, the reputation of Longfellow as a writer is what led to the famous legends. Israel Bissel was the true hero that warned of the british and passed the message given to him by General Palmer "To arms, to arms, the war has begun, the british are coming!" Hate political correctness that had run amok and over the many years has revised history, it's damn near like the history revisionists in the book 1984. The legend of Paul Revere was a hoax, a fraud. Read about Israel Bissel the true hero
He (PR) rode through town in the middle of the night. No bells/guns. How exactly was he warning people in the middle of the night? If it was a candle in the window (1 if by land), would you just be totally skrewed if it happened in the daytime?
English is not computer code. You can use just one "=" symbol for the word "equals"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I've done it here.
But at least I attack her for what she actually says, and for the obvious meaning in context, and don't put up strawman.
Liberals like to say she is a detriment to political discourse in this country, but instances like this show me the opposite is true: Her attackers continually dig from the bottom of the outhouse in their crazed effort to discredit her in any way. It shows, your ignorance of basic things like the date of the Boston Tea Party shows. You are showing your desperation. That she has this effect is one of the very few things I like about her.
If you want to attack someone's ignorant statements, try Obama, Biden or Michelle Bachmann. They've got a ton of them, absolutely indefensible ignorance or just flat-out lies, but you mainly see only Bachmann's in the media.
If this debateable point makes Palin a "stupid twat," then how about Obama thinking Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than his own Illinois, which shares a border? How about him thinking they speak Arabic and Kurdish in Afghanistan? How about him thinking the Selma marches were before he was born?
You used a sexist label, so let's use a racist one, "dumb nigger."
Here's where I try to get by the lameness filter so I can post the actual tweet in the format it was written.
"Palin Fan Haters deface news to fit their views of Palin Fans."
Sorry but I am an idiot; I am still struggling with how those two words could even be conceived without inviting divine retribution (death by heaven.)
blah blah blah blah blah blah
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
History, according to Palin and Bachman:
Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere!
At first he rode to raise an alarm
At every Middlesex village and farm,
“The British are coming, no time for trifles,
“So lock up your daughters and pick up your rifles!”
Then he wheeled around on his gallant steed
And rode toward the British at maximum speed
To tell them the Colonists were ready to fight
At Concord and Lexington later that night:
“So head for those towns; you know where they’re at,
“In Massachusetts or Vermont or something like that.”
Donald Dunn
32 Gramercy Park S.
New York, NY 10003
(current phone: 239 963 9104)
The Revere entry in Conservapedia was similarly reworked, and the current edit is exhibiting signs of split personality. I gotta laugh when someone claims an edit is based on "authoritative" sources by quoting a quote from a major newspaper... while skipping over the context of the newspaper's reporting, that the person quoted made a verbal boo-boo.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Why is this scored as 0? It checks out. If anything it should be modded up as Informative.
Maybe, maybe not.
Could be anti-Palin types doing the dirty work to smear Palin supporters.
Such tactics are certainly standard fare for the "community organizer" crowd.
Whatever.
Who exactly is Fisher and why isn't the name of the book listed? These people are doing their best to change history to fit a distorted view of a poorly educated self promoting liar. Palin has no idea of American History and if you watch her speak, it's more like drugged rambling rather than intelligent discourse.
I fervently hope the operators of the site pay close attention and lock this record with the facts and not the fairy tales Palin and her moronic followers like to make up.
While I agree, you have to admit it's better to Hate with politics than with guns...up to a point.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"Vandalism" is a matter of opinion,as we see here. One person's "vandalism" is another person's "cold hard facts." You can't have an encyclopedia anyone can edit without having some disputes over the content. Wikipedia is succeeding at what it set out to be. Maybe that's not what you want out of it, but it's what most of us want. There are non user edited encyclopedias out there, if that's what you want. It sounds like you have a problem with the foundational notion of just what wikipedia is, and while that is your right, it also amounts to tilting at windmills.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This site has swung so far to the extremes that I can hardly stand to read it anymore.
This, I think, is symptomatic of the polarization of the whole culture of the US. It's not discourse or discussion anymore, it's dispute. "You're with us, or against us!"
Sometimes a disagreement can be more than just black and white, but it seems there's a shrinking amount of room in the US for all the colors needed to accurately portray, and thus talk about, the world at large.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
And I understand the concept. They have already determined that they think it is just. They then pray they have made a decision that pleases God.
You're just showing me more attack from ignorance.
There was so-much more done than Paul Revere that I feel as though important key elements have been re-written out of American Statesmen history to conceal the fact that Americans were more indigenous to the continent than the United States ever came to be known. Tracing all the contacts, and you will see a double construction created by the Crown of England to make appear that the United States was grown on America when in-fact it was a franchise hatched from London ENGLAND.
How do you depose a body? It's not going to talk much.
what in this post warrants a troll?
These are factual quotes with a sourced article that is relative to the story.
a rogue moderator pushing an agenda or is there a legitimate issue?
that's easy
the left is enraged and in grief that so many fellow americans don't have a problem electing pam anderson to the white house
i prefer my leaders intelligent. sorry
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I don't understand the fascination with picking apart every little thing Palin says. She was correct in saying that Paul Revere did warn the British against provoking the colonial population. Paul Revere did not gallop through the streets screaming as most of us are envisioning, so whip that grin that you think you know more than Palin. I bet most people don't know of Revere's warnings to the British forces, so we can all stop acting so smug that Palin's version of history wasn't spot on when what she was talking about with marginal accuracy 97% of us didn't even know.
If you have to look something up on Wiki to prove Palin wasn't accurate about an event you didn't even know happen, when do you sit back and think; wow, I'm a little douche?
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
But still fuck all compared to the number of people in america.
Some Americans (including some on this board!) apparently need to brush up on their history. ........ Paul Revere’s ride he was stopped by British soldiers, which Revere recounts in a 1789 letter maintained by the Massachusetts Historical Society ,in his original language (emphasis mine):
read up folks.........
I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? 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. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms
They are when the party, using a combination of popular vote and the desires of the party elite, decide who their nominee will be. I was talking about general elections. But 2008 would still still qualify as the first primary he ever really had to fight for.
1996: Alice Palmer had the Illinois Senate seat, and had it locked, but decides to run for US Congress, appointing Obama as her successor to her seat (yes, with the politics of the area, she could effectively appoint her successor, and he would win). She does poorly in that primary so decides to keep her seat, but Obama, in a beautiful show of gratitude, stabs her in the back by having her disqualified. He also challenges and disqualifies three other opponents. He wins unopposed in the primary. Then he wins the general election unopposed. The district always goes to the Democrat, so Republicans usually don't bother to run.
1998: Unopposed in the primary, weak Republican challenger who wouldn't have had a chance even if Obama had been an axe murderer.
2000: Obama challenges incumbent Bobby Rush for the US Senate seat primary, loses badly.
2002: Unopposed in both primary and general elections for Illinois Senate.
2004: The incumbent decides to leave the US Senate, and both strong, high-profile, and very powerful Democratic challengers decide not to run. Obama is left in the primary against a bunch of nobodies. Then in the general election Obama helped expose his only competition's messy divorce, making him drop out, leaving the election free for Obama to win against a last-minute, no-chance Republican import.
2008: Finally has to fight for an election without first eliminating, or fortunately not having to fight against, the viable competition. Like I said, the Presidency is the only time he's actually had to win an election.
Interesting in having compiled that, I notice the longest he's ever spent not trying to ditch his current office for a higher one is four years. He is the classic power-hungry politician, with a view for nothing more than gaining higher office. He's exactly what's wrong with our current system, the opposite of the citizen legislator it was intended for.
Where's the sport in that? Maybe it's a comparison operation. :-P
let's see...
the video doesn't ever tell you what was said to palin that prompted her response. we don't know if the question was, "who was paul revere?" or "what was the purpose of paul revere's ride?" or "what was paul revere famous for?" if you don't look around, you don't realize that the question was actually about how her day was going. the paul revere nonsense just spewed out on its own, unprovoked.
so then palin haters make assumptions that the question was about the purpose of the ride, because that would indeed make what she said false.
palin fanbois on the other hand make assumptions that just because she fumbled her way around an historical account that her response wasn't complete lucky bullshit, or that it shouldn't matter if it is. fanbois also assume that because some scholars have said if you stretched what she said around how you like it, you could interpret what she said to be approximately what actually happened.
facts dispute palin's literal interpretation. paul revere was never said to have rung any bells: he was said to have warned americans along the route "the regulars are coming out" because it was a covert mission and everyone around them was british. they were rebels, remember? not the status quo in the area. paul revere was never said to have fired any warning shots. it has been reiterated ad nauseum that his mission was secret, with him being a rebel and all.
he was captured for a brief time, and released shortly after "warning" the british officers that they would soon be outnumbered. one could imply that his warning was meant to instigate his release, but we don't really know that for certain. it is reasonably certain that his mission was not to become captured, but honestly that's something that could be taken to one's grave. however, the media would like to embellish palin's gaffes so they use headlines to make it sound as though she thought his goal was to warn the british, and not the americas. factually he did both, to americans intentionally, and to the british incidentally.
the one fact that only palin haters seem willing to admit:
palin is inclined to make shit up on the spot because if she doesn't keep moving her mouth all you see is the deer caught in headlights. if she were made to attempt the equivalent of an algebraic proof of how she arrived at her answer, she would fail miserably. sometimes, just because you're right it doesn't mean you're right (my married friends tell me all about it). that seems to be something only palin haters can accept, but really we're all above twisting the meaning around to fit our narrative. palin provides all the ammo a sane person needs to shoot back, only in this case it's a complete waste. the shame of looking foolish does nothing to detract her from harvesting more of that shame.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
So you actually CAN see Russia from the Palin's front porch! Just wait and see!
... and says it all.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"