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.
how they no it was sarah palin "fans"? could have been opposite
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.
I have $20 that says it was opponents that did this. Why? Because this is how politics is played.
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.
It was a speech. IIRC there are some articles on Gawker about it and her subsequent attempts to justify her historical fiction of the event.
Either way I agree with some of the posts on Gawker, concerned for her brain damage, as most people would be embarrassed by such gaffes, but she seems to have no shame.
One of the comedians or shows (can't remember which) had a fake Palin for 2012 Republican Nomination ad, with "Paid for by Barack Obama" line at the end... This kind of thing of gaffe on her part just reemphasizes the funny...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
that moron said that paul revere was warning not the americans (or colonials) but british.
Read radical news here
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.
Yeah, this is a completely transparent joe-job. As if Palin fans were smart enough to find Wikipedia, let alone edit it.
You do realize that Paul Revere was captured on his ride and did warn the British that they would not be able to take away the colonists' guns?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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
Palin was wrong, no doubt, but that characterization is also misleading... she didn't say Revere was "warning the British," she said he was "warning the British that they're not going to be taking away our arms." She wasn't characterizing Revere as a British sympathizer.
Not that she wasn't wrong... she was... I would like to think that republicans are smart enough NOT to make her the GOP candidate, but there's so many people trying that a split vote could lead to someone like Palin winning the nomination... and the democrats would rejoice.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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.
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.
EXACTLY! He also told them he could see Russia from his house and that pi was equal to three. God bless conservative truth!
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.
But that was not the purpose of his ride, which Palin claimed. She's retarded. Absolutely retarded.
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.
It all started going down hill when AOL effectively folded and they were allowed directly onto the net...
that moron said that paul revere was warning not the americans (or colonials) but british.
From The Boston Herald:
Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.
and
In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”
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.”
and
Meanwhile, the state’s Democratic Party held a thin blue line on the issue, insisting on mocking Palin despite a brief historical review of the matter. State party chairman John Walsh wise-cracked that the region welcomes all tourists, even those with “an alternative view of history.”
“If you believe he was riding through the countryside sending text messages and Tweets to the British, still come to Boston,” he said. “There are a lot of things to do and see.”
But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct, linking to Revere quotes on his conservative blog Legalinsurrection.com, 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.”
I believe that last statement could refer to you. You should be careful of who you call "moron". You know the old saying about glass houses, right?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You also know that Palin never said she could see Russia from her house right? It was just an SNL Skit.
Actual quote from Palin: "They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."
I'm no fan of Palin but please try to separate her real gaffes from the ones the media made up.
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!
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 don't have enough faith in humanity to assume that Palin winning the primary would be enough to get a democrat into the white house in 2012.
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.
She wasn't characterizing Revere as a British sympathizer.
Stating fact and public opinion now makes one a "sympathizer?" I think more accurately, she stated fact in her nutty innocence, combined with the fact most people are dumb, they then read their personal ignorance on the matter to assume she's completely delusional.
Palin got it wrong, every student of history knows that Paul Revere refers to how the Beastie Boys met....
Nice selective editing just like the conservative blogger. This is what she said:
âoewarned the British that they werenâ(TM)t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as heâ(TM)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.â
That just didn't happen. He didn't ring any bells, he didn't shoot any guns, and the purpose of the ride was not to warn the British. In the process of warning the militia he was captured and gave an inflated count to the British as a warning.
I have actually seen the video of her comment and what she said was consistent with the history of the incident, see ArcherB's post further down the thread.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That people in glass houses don't sink ships?
You do realize a broken clock is right twice a day, right?
"But this one goes to 11!"
You do realize that Paul Revere was captured on his ride and did warn the British that they would not be able to take away the colonists' guns?
False. After his capture Revere told the British that the country was raised against them. Not one word about taking away the colonist's guns.
And while it is true that "you can't take their guns" is a reasonable inference from "they are ready and waiting for you", it is also a reasonable inference that "you can't take their trousers" or "you can't quarter soldiers in their homes", but for some reason you don't mention either of those, nor the dozens of other things you could reasonably infer from what Revere reported telling them, which was not "you can't take their guns" but "the country is raised against you."
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I thought it was more a reference to this quote.
I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
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
My thoughts exactly. Much as in a sane and sensible world, Obama would wipe the floor with an intellectual light-weight like Palin, I fear we don't live in that world. After all, another intellectual light-weight and draft dodger seemed likely for a sure defeat against the a highly intelligent VP who had been VP during a period of almost unprecedented peace and prosperity, but that didn't quite work out so well......
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.
You really need to clean up your quote. It's quite difficult to read.
But, in response, I'm sure that Sarah Palin thinks that Paul Revere stopped at every church, hopped off of his horse, ran inside and rang the bells before heading off to the next church.
Her quote may be a bit convoluted, but that doesn't give you the right to make up your own unrealistic interpretation of what she meant.
But, hey. Don't take my word for it:
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.”
I'm sure that you know more than a guy with a Ph.D. from Brown University. Please be sure to copy any responses to him directly and be sure to tell him that you think he's a moron and knows nothing about history.
It's really kind of sad. I mean, it's OK to not like Sarah Palin. You are even free to think she's not very bright. But when you have to change facts in your own mind to back up your opinion, it just makes you self disillusioned partisan. You are supposed to find facts that already back up your assertion, not change facts that don't.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
I love watching you guys squirm as you carry water you really don't want to be carrying. Please, by all means, keep defending Palin. It's hilarious, and it doesn't make either of you look any smarter.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Please answer this question yes or no. Do you want a Palin presidency?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
If only I had mod points today.
The moderator snapped -- or, from my point of view, anti-snapped -- a couple of years ago, and finally decided that his normal associates and commenters were a bunch of morons. He's still conservative, but he and the site are far from the cesspool it used to be.
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.
And while it is true that "you can't take their guns" is a reasonable inference from "they are ready and waiting for you", it is also a reasonable inference that "you can't take their trousers" or "you can't quarter soldiers in their homes", but for some reason you don't mention either of those,...
That is because the British soldiers that Revere talked to on this occassion were marching in order to take away the colonists' guns, not their trousers, nor to quarter soldiers in their homes.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Yeah for some reason the copy and pasting went to crap.
And I may not know more about history than the Ph.D. but obviously I can analyze things more independently and reasonably than he can. I am not a Democrat. I am a registered independent. I believe both sides are filled with idiots but right now the Republicans have the lead.
You cannot change what she said - she said that Paul Revere was shooting guns and ringing bells. That is not what happened. End of story.
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.
You're lazy.
If you have no evidence to contradict Rob's claim, then it's silly for you to ask for him to provide evidence. Your post is far worse than his in terms of unsupported assertions.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
Please answer this question yes or no. Do you want a Palin presidency?
I'll answer that "yes or no" if you answer mine "yes or no". Do you still place objects up your ass for pleasure? Yes or no!
Now, for a real answer...
Palin is near the bottom of my list of Republicans I would like to see get the nomination. However, if she is to get the nomination, she will receive my vote over President Obama. Although, if you wanted to give me a hard question, try asking me if I'd vote for Joseph Stalin over President Obama. That's a tough one.
(See what I did there? I called him "President Obama". Not "Mr. Obama". Not "Obama". Not "NObama". And especially not "MSNBC-GE-57States-InflatingTirePressureWillSolveOurEnergyWoes-Obama". He is the President of the United States and I will give him the respect that title deserves, unlike what was done to former President Bush.)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Well, it's better than what liberals do and just pretend that their heros didn't say the things they said (Obama, "I have visited all 57 states").
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
I presume you must know that Palin was rightly mocked for her actual quote as well. The "I can see Russia from my house!" bit was a hyperbole meant to ridicule the actual statement for its stupidity.
Her actual statement was trying to lend legitimacy to herself. As if being close to Russia meant she was somehow an expert on it. She was conflating seeing it with being informed and knowledgeable about it.
And that's logically asinine. I live next door to a physician. That in no way qualifies me to treat anyone medically and gives me no expertise in the medical field. And if I were trying to claim medical expertise by mentioning proximity to a doctor, I'd rightly be thought a fool for it.
But, in response, I'm sure that Sarah Palin thinks that Paul Revere stopped at every church, hopped off of his horse, ran inside and rang the bells before heading off to the next church.
Problem is, based on what she said, that wouldn't be so far off. I mean, compare this:
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.
With this:
...ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells...
So, she was right that bells were ringing and warning shots were being fired, but entirely wrong that Paul Revere was actually doing this, that he was doing this to warn the British, and that warning the British was the purpose of his ride. Nothing your guy with a PhD says offers any support for this actually being the case, or for Sarah Palin actually understanding, say, that Paul Revere didn't actually ring bells or fire shots. In fact, quite the opposite, from the article you quoted:
McConville said he also is not convinced that Palin’s remarks reflect scholarship.
"I would call her lucky in her comments," McConville said.
While you're not quite quote-mining, I'd suggest you take your own advice -- look at the facts, especially those which are uncomfortable for your position.
I'll give you that she wasn't quite as wrong as she at first glance appeared to be. But I don't see how you can get from what she actually said to anything remotely historically accurate. This isn't my own "unrealistic interpretation of what she meant." This is taking what she said, at face value, without doing all sorts of mental acrobatics just to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Not a digital clock.
When he was captured? Or with the bells and guns did he warn them?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Now *thats* spin!
Whether the GOP makes her a candidate or not, she just might make herself one. And Trump will be her VP candidate! Go third party!
/me leaves a little stain on that last statement. And not a good stain.
// if the people want a third party, there should also be a fourth party - liberal dems, conservative dems, liberal repubs, conservative repubs. Ok, maybe a two more - so far left they think Obama is a republican and so far right they think Bush is a democrat.
Yes, I still place objects up my ass for pleasure. Not that often, because I have piles, but your mom's tongue is pretty soft and soothing.
You would really vote for a retarded quitter over Mr. Right Wing Big Business? That's pretty stupid, dude. Obama is more Republican than Nixon! Obama's favorite president was Reagan! Stop pretending you don't like the guy, he is everything Republicans love. Except for that one thing they hate...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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
I'm a european so take the following as you will. IMHO the real problem seems to be that she took a well-known historical anecdote and worded as so that the meaning was altered: taking a story about a guy warning people an invading force was on the way and making it seem like this was some NRA crackpot warning people that "the gubment's coming to take your guns." You can nitpick the details but that seems historically inaccurate to me, a twisting of words to fit a version of history more appealing to her voters.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
As opposed to the current President? Absolutely.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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
Yeah, Republicans will laugh all the way to the bank if Palin is their candidate. California democrats learned that lesson when Arnold became the Republican candidate.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Yeah for some reason the copy and pasting went to crap.
And I may not know more about history than the Ph.D. but obviously I can analyze things more independently and reasonably than he can. I am not a Democrat. I am a registered independent. I believe both sides are filled with idiots but right now the Republicans have the lead.
You cannot change what she said - she said that Paul Revere was shooting guns and ringing bells. That is not what happened. End of story.
Let me try to quote to make life easier:
“...warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms 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.”
That's like saying I didn't post this message; my computer did. Fact is that bells were rung as a result of Paul Revere's ride. It is true that he did not ring the bells himself and it would have been more accurate if Ms. Palin had said, "“...warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by having those bells rung..." But to call Sarah Palin a "moron" over this after Obama's "57 states"* comment is a bit one sided.
Although, as I understand it, the original complaint was not that Palin had said that Revere was ringing bells, but that she said he had warned the British. I'm not aware of anyone trying to update the Wikipedia page saying that Paul Revere was actually ringing bells. Truth is, he was probably trying to remain as stealthy as possible as he rode, notifying others to ring the church bells, fire guns or whatever local methods were agreed upon to signal that the British were coming.
* Obama said he had visited 57 states while campaigning. Of course, I'm sure he meant 47 and just slipped. Some people tried to make Obama look like an idiot over the statement, but no one took them seriously. To try to make it seem as if Palin truly believes that Paul Revere was riding around ringing a bell would be same as those saying that President Obama truly believes that there are 57+ states.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
aOh snap!ddiHow humourous! :):wq
Man I hate VI.
which is totally what she said
You know the old saying about glass houses, right?
Something along the lines of, 'don't let the cops see you get stoned'?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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.”
I bet she couldn't pass the citizenship exam they give immigrants
Actually, yeah. The original complaint was that she said that Paul Revere warned the British, which was fact. Here are some links:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2011/06/03/sarah-palin-paul-revere-gaffe.htm
As any elementary school student can probably tell you, Paul Revere was not attempting to warn the British when he rode around crying, "The British are coming." Nor was he ringing bells and trying to protect gun rights.
Apparently Palin learned nothing at any of the five colleges she attended.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/06/03/sarah-palin-paul-revere-warned-the-british/
This certainly gives us an entirely new point of view to consider when examining our nation’s founding.
While I had been led to believe that Revere’s historic ride was actually for the purpose of warning our forefathers that the British were coming, it turns out that his midnight ride, complete with ringing bells and warning shots, was really all about letting the English know that we were armed.
http://www.huliq.com/3257/sarah-palin-paul-reveres-midnight-ride-warned-brits
Former vice-presidential candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin has never been accused of being a brain surgeon, but her latest gaffe is another cautionary example of why she is, many say, unqualified to be a Presidential candidate: Paul Revere's ride was not to warn U.S. Revolutionary War patriots, but instead to warn the British.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
He is the President of the United States and I will give him the respect that title deserves, unlike what was done to former President Bush.)
The respect due is independent of the office held for all but the stupidest of sheep. Do you think, for example, that Joseph Stalin was worthy of respect because of the office he held? He may have been worthy of fear, but respect?
And from another point of view, are you now speaking for all Republicans when you say he'll be given respect? Because certainly not every Democrat acted unlike you in behaving respectfully toward Bush.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
What difference would it make? You think the banks or the pentagon is going to let her do anything? Please, the only thing you'll notice will be a bump in the ratings for Comedy Central... I would think by now that people realize it doesn't matter which mannequin you elect to place in front of the camera... Appears not to be the case
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Leaving leap units aside, there are (24 x 60 =) 1440 minutes in a day. Twice in those 1440 minutes the clock will be correct, so it is right 2/1440 (0.138888...)of the time.
If it has a second hand, there are (24 x 60 x 60 =) 86400 seconds in a day. Twice in those 86400 seconds the clock will be correct, so it is right 2/86400 (0.0023148148...%) of the time.
As they say: Politics is economics by other means.
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.
So you are saying President Obama is capable of learning in office rather than slavishly following received Democrat dogma?
You are really stretching now. The purpose of ringing the bells wasn't to warn the British and it was never his intention. He only warned the British because he got captured. If he had never been captured he never would have warned the British.
I really don't care about the Obama thing one way or the other. The topic is about Palin.
Yes, I still place objects up my ass for pleasure. Not that often, because I have piles, but your mom's tongue is pretty soft and soothing.
Wow! Most of her customer's quit after his/her "operation". Glad to see you hung around.
You would really vote for a retarded quitter over Mr. Right Wing Big Business? That's pretty stupid, dude. Obama is more Republican than Nixon! Obama's favorite president was Reagan! Stop pretending you don't like the guy, he is everything Republicans love. Except for that one thing they hate...
You shouldn't assume that I "hate" President Obama. I actually like the guy and feel he's getting a bum wrap over the way Congress is screwing up the economy. Remember, unemployment was at 4.7% in Jan 2007 when Democrats took over Congress. That was after six years of Bush in office and twelve years of a Republican led Congress. In less than two years, the unemployment rate and nearly doubled and would by 2010. Fact is, the president has little effect over the economy. If you look at the ups and downs of the economy over the last 30 years, you'll see it goes up and down based on who controls congress, not who controls the White House. This is supported further by the fact that Congress usually changes sides during presidential mid-terms as happened to the first President Bush, President Clinton and the second President Bush.
But to relate this to your question about Palin as President. Yeah, I'd take her. All she can do is sign bills or veto them. What is more important is who is writing those bills and sending them her way. If it's a Democratic lead Congress, she can veto. If it's a Republican held Congress, she'll sign. That's about the same thing any Republican would do which is why they would get my vote over President Obama.
So.... Yes.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I'm not sure that you meant this in response to my post and I am not sure what your point is? It seems contrary to your other posts, though.
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
Her actual statement was trying to lend legitimacy to herself. As if being close to Russia meant she was somehow an expert on it. She was conflating seeing it with being informed and knowledgeable about it.
Being the governor of a state close to another country probably means you learn a little about that country. I'd trust governors in Texas and Arizona to know more about Mexico than governors in Maine or Washington. Granted, there's a lot less trade between Alaska and Russia, and no shared land border...
...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.
The point people were trying to make is that she had no foreign policy experience. The reply was to indicate that she was governor of a state that shares a border with a country that is not Canada or Mexico. There are certainly some state-level concerns that would be affected by foreign policy with Russia.
Was her point weak? Yes. What state-level work she would do with Russia would be extremely limited and very likely mediated and controlled by the State Department. Was it worthy of ridicule? I don't think so, although she would have been better served by pointing out that foreign policy experience was not required of a number of other US Presidents before they got into office. Even some of the big ones like Lincoln were hardly foreign policy experts and they did okay even though foreign policy was important (like keeping the Europeans from recognizing the Confederacy).
Would I vote for Palin? Most likely not, mostly because she has made decisions like quitting her job as Governor for reasons that do not sit well with me. She's not on the same level as Limbaugh, but she's also set herself up to be a polarizer, which we don't need.
I do not, however, allow things like those quotes to control my impressions of her and it irritates me when gaffes like that are trundled out, as though they make all the difference. When someone repeats those quotes in that manner, it makes me think less of them, and not Palin, because they are clearly either unable to talk about her failings intelligently, or they are more interested in trying to cloud the issues with one-liners.
While I admit that I do want someone who can be made to sound intelligent and stately to be in charge, I am also cognizant that the media is very good at making people that they don't like out to be fools when they are nowhere near as bad as they are portrayed. I recall Chevy Chase, for instance, saying that he did not want Gerald Ford to be re-elected and and he did his best to make him look like a bumbling fool on SNL to get the desired effect. To believe that he is the only performer or media person to have taken facts and emphasized them in a certain manner for a desired effect would be naive.
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.
What does "powder alarm" mean to you? If you're drawing a blank, it's linked in the RTFA. It was a strategy to remove arms and powder from the region surrounding Boston in order to prevent an uprising. Taking their guns is exactly what the regulars were out doing that night.
Leaving leap units aside, there are (24 x 60 =) 1440 minutes in a day. Twice in those 1440 minutes the clock will be correct, so it is right 2/1440 (0.138888...)of the time.
If it has a second hand, there are (24 x 60 x 60 =) 86400 seconds in a day. Twice in those 86400 seconds the clock will be correct, so it is right 2/86400 (0.0023148148...%) of the time.
All the digital clocks I have will keep the wrong time if they lose power. Lose power, comes back and clock says "12:00". One hour later, clock now says "01:00". That's a broken clock that's never right.
Well they have the solution...Medicare. She's said Ryan's plan is good and that is enough to doom her (or whoever they pick) prospects.
Unless of course the Dems do something stupid like agree to cut Medicare..... [faceplant]
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
she just might make herself one. And Trump will be her VP candidate! Go third party!
where is that Like button???? I know a bunch Dems overjoyed to click a billion times...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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".
Funny stuff! I've read a lot of your comments and have to stop after this one. I remember as soon as Obama got elected, all the conservatives in my state were running out to buy every remaining piece of ammo and saying "That obama guy is gonna take all our guns away."
It makes me sad, because in case you haven't been paying attention, both retardlicans and dummycrats are doing exactly the same thing when they are in office. Canada laughs at us because we only have a two party system. Could it possibly be because they are on the same side and just playing people like yourself? I'm not trying to troll you, i'm just throwing you an angle you might not have thought about yet.
Mister T and Philip Fry for Pres/VP!!!!
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.
Ok, he was warning people that an invading force (actually not, they were military forces of the legitimate government) was on the way to take their guns.
Does that ratchet up the accuracy factor a bit? It's true, read up on the Powder Alarms.
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?
She wasn't characterizing Revere as a British sympathizer, but she was showing her ignorance about US history, and trying to characterize him as someone who fits in line with her ideology, when that clearly isn't the case.
You are really stretching now. The purpose of ringing the bells wasn't to warn the British and it was never his intention. He only warned the British because he got captured. If he had never been captured he never would have warned the British.
I really don't care about the Obama thing one way or the other. The topic is about Palin.
Allow me to refer to the quote I offered earlier:
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.”
The point of ringing bells and make a bunch of noise was to warn the British as much as it was to alert the militia, according to this historian. He has a point. If the goal was to only alert the militia, I'm sure they could have found a more stealthy method than ringing church bells. The fact that the argument has switched to "Paul Revere ringing bells" proves that the goal simply to show that Palin was wrong. That is a stretch and as I read up the posts, was your original complaint.
I brought up Obama as an example of gaffe that was made by then candidate Obama to show the double standard. It proves that this is not about correcting history as much as it is to provided evidence that your assumption that Sarah Palin is an idiot is a correct one. Again, it's a stretch.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
But to call Sarah Palin a "moron" over this after Obama's "57 states"* comment is a bit one sided.
Sarah Palin has said far, far more stupid things, both in magnitude and in quantity, than Obama has.
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
In less than two years, the unemployment rate and nearly doubled and would by 2010.
Perhaps you forgot the collapse of the banking system? Something which can be traced back to the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act in the late 90s/early 2000.
Yeah, I'd take her. All she can do is sign bills or veto them.
And send troops into battle, and have extreme influence over business regulations due to controlling the various Cabinet offices, and having considerable influence over the legislative agenda that gets put forward.
That's true, I'm certainly not denying that... I'm saying it's already being mischaracterized as, instead of a simple goof and perhaps ideologically biased "revision," to being completely NOT what she said when it's left at "She said Revere warned the British."
It's blatantly misleading; what she said is bad enough without having to give people the idea she thinks Revere was working for the British.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I am not sure I can keep arguing in circles. I stated it out in plain undeniable facts but it just isn't getting through. She said what she said and it was factually incorrect based on history and what Revere himself said.
What I think probably happened was some staffer gave her a quick history lesson and she jumbled up all the facts into the rambling, inaccurate statement that she made. Yes if you pull individual words out of her statement you can fit them into some of the truth but you cannot ignore the whole speech just to make her seem less wrong.
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?
wow, just..... wow
at first, I thought you sounded fair and reasonable in this debate. I didn't agree with your opinion, but at least you came across as someone who has thought about what he's writing.
Your comment about having difficulty to choose between Stalin and Obama though...... Idiocy is too small a word for it
Palin's real potential power-base seems to be mustering together extreme conservatives regardless of political orientation. I'm not sure how much legs that role has in the US, where it doesn't go much further than the party convention; in a parliamentary system, she'd be much more than a bit player.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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
All the digital clocks I have will keep the wrong time if they lose power. Lose power, comes back and clock says "12:00". One hour later, clock now says "01:00". That's a broken clock that's never right.
80's technology did have its draw backs. But here in 2011, for just $11.99 you can fix that problem: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-ICF-C218-Automatic-Clock-Radio/dp/B000MXWSWI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307379350&sr=8-1
I respectfully disagree. Hating people is always wrong.
Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them.
Facts hurt.
You do realize that Paul Revere was captured on his ride and did warn the British that they would not be able to take away the colonists' guns?
Meh, it's a stretch. But try and fix this one: "Obviously, we gotta stand with our North Korean allies."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023899-503544.html
The "57 states" thing was a slip of the tongue. Obama didn't spend days/weeks trying to explain why he was right, and there really are 57 states.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am also cognizant that the media is very good at making people that they don't like out to be fools when they are nowhere near as bad as they are portrayed.
I guess that applies to Dukakis, John Kerry and Joe Biden and their endless gaffes eh? Well at least you logic shows the media is not as partisan as some conservatives would like us all to believe. I think its just when you are a gaffe machine the media and late night comedy will have a field day no matter what side of the fence you are on. Unlike Conservative media (which i listen to alot by the way) that will highlight gaffes made by liberals while covering up and explaining away gaffes made by conservatives.
I didn't see them giving Anthony Weiner a break when his shit hit the fan.
The late night liberal lame stream media had a field day with that comment from Obama. And everyone knows that he didn't really believe that. Even me being an Independent can see that.
I always found this Palin-ism particularly asinine. Not only because of the above but because Alaska is a good 3 or 4 THOUSAND miles from Moscow. It's next door to Russia's snowy barren asshole. Even if being close to Russia's seat of power meant anything, Alaska isn't!
The business friendly, genius and right center part are disputable.
-- $G
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.
Most likely not, mostly because she has made decisions like quitting her job as Governor for reasons that do not sit well with me.
How do you feel about how Obama left his position as an Illinois Senator?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
He did not say he was going to get out of Afghanistan. He said he was going to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan because that is the just war.
He did say he was going to end the war in Iraq. It is still not ended 5 US soldiers just died yesterday.
Stop the patriot act? no he didn't say that. He did rave against it though but did not promise to stop it. there is a difference actually between badmouthing something and promising to stop it.
Maybe you just didn't pay attention to what he was actually saying and got swept up in the mass hysteria of what many of us wish he actually said or wanted to hear.
See here for more information.
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.
It is not my purpose to give the conservatives a pass here. If someone is making Joe Biden or Dukakis look bad outside of all relation to reality, I am against that too. I was limiting myself to that one comment since it was directly referenced in this thread.
I tend to be conservative in orientation, but I refuse to listen to things like Fox News and Limbaugh (although sometimes I do like to get a laugh from Limbaugh and the Fox anchor girls tend to be easy on the eyes). I can't pretend to be uninfluenced by the media, but I have taken a lot of effort to make sure that my opinions are not formed by characterizations presented by those groups (or any one group).
As for whether the media is more or less liberal, the surveys on the political views of journalists has been done and that has come back liberal, in general. Whether that is offset by FOX News or talk radio, I don't know. Personally, I don't care what their orientation is as long I understand where they are coming from and I can correct for the bias. Fox News is still capable of presenting facts, and it is good when they do present facts that the other media will not. If you can find the facts in both sides, you will be closer to the truth.
So in the end, I am more upset about politics by one liners than I am about media bias. The only issue I have with the bias it is that the media pretends to be impartial, and they really aren't.
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.
You've honestly stated that you would have a tough time deciding Obama vs Stalin. And you defend it. Damn. Regardless of whether I love or hate Palin or Obama, at least I can add you to the list of people to ignore in an intelligent conversation.
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.
But Obama has not proven that he is that bright either and has had his share of "grafts" as well as 2 years to demonstrate that he is not the unifier he claimed to be.
I never believed he was not born here, but would it had been that hard to have show his birth certificate 3 years ago? And the way he is withholding the pictures of bin laden (as well as deposing of the evidence/body) shows that he is either not smart or really likes to rile people up just for the hell of it.
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.
We try... Lord knows, we try... but when you can't tell parody from reality, that's its own special kind of gaffe.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
California Republicans elected to office are not the same as Republicans in most of the rest of the country. They tend to be much more moderate, just as Schwarzeneggar was. For that matter, most of the Democrats tend to be more moderate, backing the death penalty because that's what gets people elected for the most part.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
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
You would take a retarded quitter over a right-center business friendly genius?
Even though President Obama did resign from the Senate before his term was up, I think calling him a retarded quitter is a bit harsh.
Anyway, the other fellow was for Palin, not President Obama.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
He DID show his official legal birth "certificate" 3 years ago. It didn't matter, they just asked for the unofficial non-legally binding birth certificate that could not be released under normal circumstances after that.
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.
Well, it's better than what liberals do and just pretend that their heros didn't say the things they said (Obama, "I have visited all 57 states").
Do you believe Obama thinks there are 57 states?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
"grafts"? Are you suggesting he's a con man? Or did you mean "gaffs", in which case I think you just did one yourself.
Obama is a highly educated constitutional scholar, his only gaff was thinking that the Republicans thought bipartisanship was anything other than "do what we say". And as Nadaka already said, the birth certificate has been available and online for years.
False. After his capture Revere told the British that the country was raised against them. Not one word about taking away the colonist's guns.
And while it is true that "you can't take their guns" is a reasonable inference from "they are ready and waiting for you", it is also a reasonable inference that "you can't take their trousers" or "you can't quarter soldiers in their homes", but for some reason you don't mention either of those, nor the dozens of other things you could reasonably infer from what Revere reported telling them, which was not "you can't take their guns" but "the country is raised against you."
If you've watched the movie Braveheart, you would know that the English had previous experience with opponents without trousers. The lack of trousers, while offense to the eye at times, does nothing to prevent infantry action and close combat. Weapons are the thing, specifically, guns. An armed and ready population is a very different thing than a lone family asleep in their beds as far as the prospects for retaining their arms - a very real concern.
Gun Control: A Historical Perspective, Part 1
Nobody had to say a word about taking the colonist's guns - it was British policy. How else do you think they were dealing with the rebellion?
Surely the reasonable inference isn't: the British will crush the rebellion and take away arms, everywhere but here?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"A townsman remembered that 'repeated gunshots, the beating of drums and the ringing of bells filled the air.'.... Along the North Shore of Massachusetts, church bells began to toll and the heavy beat of drums could be heard for many miles in the night air."
-- Paul Revere's Ride, page 140
Give three concrete, credibly documented examples. I keep seeing conservatives make these claims, but never see them cough up the data.
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'm well into the liberal side of things, but I have to admit that was a funny gaffe.
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.
Including Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Colombia, yes. That was a freudian slip Rumsfeld's style, it was supposed to be made public only if the world survives after year 2012.
(I'm half joking, ok?)
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
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.
now we know why she relates to the "real america" she seems to claim she is talking to all the time.
They received the same education.
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?
More selective editing. How about the sentence before that you ignored:
"He rode directly to the house of Captain Isaac Hall, commander of Medford's minutemen [who was not British], who [meaning Captain Hall - not Revere] instantly triggered the town's alarm system."
In other words - he did not ride to warn the British; he rode to warn the minutemen. And he didn't ring bells and shoot guns - that was the "alarm system" triggered by Captain Hall.
Thanks for proving how wrong she was.
I voted for the guy, but genius? Not even remotely.
Then again I'm stingy with words like that.
English is not computer code. You can use just one "=" symbol for the word "equals"
Kamchatka and Vladivostok are far more relevant to Russia than Alaska is to the US.
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."
He also told them....
California has a fetid muddle of corrupt miseryshits. Any "Republican" or "Democrat" labels are just window dressing for the peanut gallery.
Here's where I try to get by the lameness filter so I can post the actual tweet in the format it was written.
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
Actual Transcript:
"GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
The leading question to her response was actually asking how her close proximity of Alaska gave her insight into Russia. On careful read she mangled the response to how being close to Alaska gives her insight, she could have talked about cultural and trade ties between Alaska and Russia. But its also not a response that she came up with to legitimize her foreign policy knowledge. Once again you are talking about a misinterpretation of the real interview based on the SNL representation.
And let me state this again, I am not a Palin fan, and think she is clumsy in press engagements. However I think the majority of people in this country falsely attribute the Tina Fey parody to the politician.
Nice! It's better than the typical political jokes.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah but it is. She didn't just come up with it unprompted. Gibson asked what insight the proximity gave her and she said "...you can actually see Russia..." as a response. The implication is that since you can actually see it somehow that gives some special insight. It was a stupid answer.
As someone else mentioned, she could have brought up a number of issues including trade. But all she had to offer as to why being close geographically to Russia gives her special insight was essentially "you can see it from here."
Yes, her statement has been twisted and shortened and boiled down to its basics and turned into hyperbole for comedic effect. But that's because that's how comedy works. And people remember the joke instead of the actual quote for the same reason they remember Simpsons quotes and such but can't name the members of the Supreme Court: one of those things is funny and memorable and the other is regrettably little more than trivia to most people.
I get what you're saying. I believe the reason Palin's latest verbal gaffe is getting ground on so is because 1) it's emblematic of her speaking style, and 2) because she has cranked up her marketing campaign, and thus is getting more exposure than usual.
Some people are competent extemporaneous speakers, while others are not. Palin isn't, but that seems to work for her fan base.
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.
Sadly where Palin is concerned, this is presumption in the extreme. Remember, this is the candidate that couldn't find Iraq on a map (no kidding.) I'm surprised she knows that she's in the same Hemisphere as Russia,
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.
I think he left that job too soon as well. Personally, I feel that he may or may not be the least experienced president we have ever had at the national level, but he's probably close. Again, I wasn't talking about him because this was not referenced in the thread, but that is one reason I was not enthralled about his run for President.
While Palin's experience is probably more applicable to an executive position (Governor to President), she did not even have the excuse of being a Presidential candidate for leaving her job as Governor of Alaska. It seems to me that if the people elect you to do a job, you should do that job unless even more people elect you to do another, more important, job. So, if she had been elected Vice President under McCain, I would have been more okay with her vacating the Governor's position. After all, chances are that Alaska would have elected her to that position and that would have been their decision.
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.
Which dogma would that be?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That's what the real rat bastards want you to think: there is no difference between corrupt, evil, and monstrous.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
And I guess you would deny that Govenors of southern border states are not more informed on the state of Mexican politics/economy/social situations that say...a State Senator from Illinois.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You don't just hope that the mission is just, you research the facts. So far, the war in the middle east is far from anything approaching just.
Stand up to WHAT? You really do live in another universe. Palin is the proto fascist who kowtows to any politician that she thinks might help her "career" while selling out to corporate interests like the Koch brothers as fast as she can. But I thought you were all for corporations?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
He's as ALMOST as liberal as Clinton was... almost. He is, in fact, a Corporate Republican's wet dream. Except for one small detail.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What could you possible show to dispute he is business friendly? Center right and genius are opinions, but business friendly, what the fuck more could he possibly have done to kiss corporate ass?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"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
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal.
Extra Krispy
and
Original Recipe
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Now you're being retarded. You can't be president and in the senate at the same time, dipshit. Do you really not understand how our political system works? Perhaps you should take a remedial class, but I fear the stupid is just too strong in you.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Compared to Palin? Super genius. But then, my dog is smarter than Palin.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
But I thought you were all for corporations?
What made you think that? When have I ever shown Democratic Party leanings? Despite what they teach you in schools, the Democratic Party is the party of big corporations.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You have something against transsexuals? Even though your own mother is one? Man, I knew you Republicans were vicious, racist, prejudiced little turds, but that is taking things too far. She's your mom. Or dad? Anyway, whatever she was, she's a vivacious, attractive lady now, God alone knows what sick, fetid demon must have raped her to produce subhuman scum like you.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What made me think that? You are a Republican, all the legislation they have passed in the last thirty years has been pro corporate and anti working class. I would assume if you wanted something different, you would have voted differently. To be fair, there are a few Democrats who are in bed with a few industries, but nothing like the wholesale sellout that is the modern Republican party.
I mean, are you rich? And I don't mean $250,000 a year or less, that's middle class. I mean, do you make most of your money from working, or investments? I could understand why a rich person would vote for the Republicans, but I've never understood why a poor or working class person would vote against their own interests like that. Republicans are out to destroy the working and middle classes, so that people are so desperate, they accept any job offer, no mater how crappy, dangerous, or demeaning. Republicans want investors to make all the money, and the only way to do that is to make sure everyone else is poor and desperate.
- 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."
Do you believe knowledge is a function of proximity? That is to say, do you believe the closer physically you are to something the more you know about it? If so, then we cannot have a discussion because you clearly believe something that is verifiably false.
If however, you do not believe that one's knowledge of a given subject can be expressed as a function of one's proximity to that subject...well then perhaps we could agree on possible reasons a Governor of a southern border state may be more informed on the state of Mexican politics/economy/social-situations than a State Senator from Illinois.
But whatever those reasons are, it's not because you can see Mexico from parts of Texas.
Well, the real bastards are all four of those things (you forgot crazy), and they're in charge no matter what, so they would be correct..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
She moved to Arizona. Now she can see Mexico from her house.
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.
That may be. But it doesn't change the fact that the electorate is fickle, and is not easily penned into the conventional Democrat/Republican (or even liberal/conservative) camps.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
To be fair, there are a few Democrats who are in bed with a few industries, but nothing like the wholesale sellout that is the modern Republican party.
You are blind. The overwhelming majority of the richest counties in the U.S. vote overwhelmingly Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is the party of big government and big corporations. The Democratic Party favors more government regulation of various industries. So do large corporations (government regulation creates a barrier to entry to potential competitors). The only reason for a poor or working class person to vote for a Democrat is because they like being dependent on the government.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Or maybe it's because you can see the illegals crossing your ranch land. Or you can see the budget items dedicated to dealing with illegal felons, or perhaps it's because as two neighboring states, you have some common interests, especially since the Feds tend to sit on their ass and ignore things.
Do you know more about your neighbor, their habits, when they go to work, get home, if they like to BBQ or not than does someone across town? If not, then we cannot have a discussion because you are clearly an anti-social troll.
Of course proximity to anything makes you, on average, more knowledgeable about it because you have to deal with it. People in the north east don't give a shit about illegal immigration because by and large they are not affected by it. People in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and to a lesser extent California deal with it every day, especially if the cartels have overrun your ranch.
Admit it, you are just a women hater.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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"
Except we are talking about a broken clock, which can have many modes of failure. It is a clock whose failure mode is stopped that is correct twice a day.
"You do realize a broken clock is right twice a day, right?"
That implies it is stopped.
There may be many modes of failure but the selection that gives you the right time exactly twice (without giving any other constraints) narrows it down a lot.
If it has a second hand, there are (24 x 60 x 60 =) 86400 seconds in a day. Twice in those 86400 seconds the clock will be correct, so it is right 2/86400 (0.0023148148...%) of the time.
Except by this definition, many of the clocks in the world are wrong all the time, specifically almost all that are set manually. Almost no one I know (and I know some pretty nerdy folk) bothers to set the seconds correctly on their clocks (setting aside the issue that most such clocks also drift by many seconds each month), so according to your definition, their clocks are worse than a broken clock.
Alaska shares a border with Russia? What, has the land bridge come back recently?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Yes, I would take the person who has proven that she can stand up to corrupt politicians and big business over the proto-fascist currently in the White House.
You are insane.
Please contact a doctor as soon as you can, for your own sake, if not your friends and family.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal.
Oh, don't worry. I do.
Remind me, when's Andrew Breitbart going to jail for calling Weiner's weiner Weiner's after Weiner claimed it wasn't Weiner's weiner? It's been a few days and I don't think he's even been arrested for it.
"[Andrew Breitbart] is a liar, and he's going to jail, fool." - spun #363314
Alaska shares a border with Russia?
Yes, as a matter of fact, Alaska does share a border with Russia.
A country's national sovereignty does not stop at the water's edge. It extends a certain distance into the sea. There are no international waters in the Bering Strait; the United State's exclusive economic zone directly borders Russia's.
What, has the land bridge come back recently?
Who said anything about land? But hey, if you're so inclined, you actually can walk across it when it freezes. It was crossed in 1998 on skis, and as recently as 2006 on foot.
And, them being British, it's reasonable to assume that Revere was realy worried about them wanting his trousers.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Uh, but he is. Nothing "far left" about knowing that.
That's the current Republican (sorry "Tea party") view.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I know for a fact that the three wealthiest counties in NJ vote Republican (and they are all in the top ten in the US). Do you have anything to cite for your ridiculous claim? Or are you blowing smoke out your ass again?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Business Friendly != Large Corporation friendly.
Most businesses are small businesses which are going out of business rapidly. Where do you think all the job loss is coming from?
-- $G
... and says it all.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"