Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Longermonger · 06-08-2011, 03:47 AM

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/06/sarah-palin/was-trash-talking-british-part-paul-reveres-ride/

Revere didn't intend to warn the British of anything, but when captured he boasted...so you could call that warning if you really, really want Palin to be right about something. Simple enough. The rest of her statement was dead wrong (no shock there).

Now, what really got my attention was Palin stating that she was asked a GOTCHA question. Here's what Palin said: "In a shout-out, GOTCHA TYPE OF QUESTION that was asked of me, I answered candidly." Here is the sneaky, brutal question that the lame-stream media attacked Palin with: "What have you seen so far today and what are you going to take away from your visit?"

herfacechair · 06-08-2011, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longermonger

Revere didn't intend to warn the British of anything, but when captured he boasted...so you could call that warning if you really, really want Palin to be right about something. Simple enough. The rest of her statement was dead wrong (no shock there).

Now, what really got my attention was Palin stating that she was asked a GOTCHA question. Here's what Palin said: "In a shout-out, GOTCHA TYPE OF QUESTION that was asked of me, I answered candidly." Here is the sneaky, brutal question that the lame-stream media attacked Palin with: "What have you seen so far today and what are you going to take away from your visit?"

That was one of the implied intents of his mission.

People must see this from our founding father's eyes, not from our 21st Century interpretation of things.

Our concept of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness derived from the British' philosophy. Prior to "pursuit of happiness," the colonials used the one from the British, which stated that we had the right to life, liberty and property. This concept is based on English Common Law.

In the UK, and throughout her domains, you understood that you could never walk unto someone's property, and confiscate it without due process of the law. This property included the right to bear arms... a concept we also inherited from the British.

When the regulars got the disarming mission, they already knew that this wasn't going to be an easy mission. Their best hope was that the colonials would hand over their arms, and to allow the regulars to walk away, with their weapons in hand. When they heard the bells, weapons and drums, they knew that the colonials weren't going to give their arms up.

The patriots were willing to stand their ground, but, at the same time, people didn't really want to fight the regulars over it. Not yet anyway. Most were hoping that war would be averted. One of the hopes was for the regulars to "come to their senses," when they heard the alarms. That didn't happen.

Under English Common Law, or Natural Law, you didn't always spell things out. Many of the rules, and intentions, were "unwritten." Even the British constitution was unwritten... this contributed greatly to our eventually revolting against them... lose interpretation of a law that wasn't written. This was common back in our founding father's day.

When Paul Revere was captured, he didn't see the regulars as "them," and the colonials as "us." Both sides were hoping that this wouldn't come to conflict. So Paul Revere was being "matter of fact" when he told the British what he told them. His statement backed one of the implied intent of his mission... to let the regulars know that they can't just take our property... in this case, arms... away from us.

Now, how was Paul Revere, his battle buddy, and the other two man teams going to go about that? By activating the alarm system, a system that has been in place since the medieval period. The primary purpose was to get the colonials on line. One of the secondary purposes was to warn the regulars that they were not going to be getting what they set out to get. If this would've succeeded, the first purpose wouldn't have been needed.

Sarah Palin was right on point, and dead accurate, with what she was trying to convey. Not just on one point, but on the vast majority of her points. She didn't get that point out effectively though, stumbling in the process of explaining something she had just brushed up on.

catnipdipper · 06-08-2011, 12:29 PM

The war with Mexico in 1848 was justified as a fight over illegal immigration.

I agree Sarah at times is seriously misunderestimated and has a ton of people in the lamestream media trying to refudiate her claims to history knowledge and being able to see Russia from her kitchen.

How does that kool aid taste anyhow?

CuteOldGuy · 06-08-2011, 12:41 PM

Sarah Palin never said she could see Russia from her kitchen. That was Tina Fey on SNL.

KCJoe · 06-08-2011, 03:19 PM

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

kcbigpapa · 06-08-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCJoe

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

It's merely semantics. The neo-Cons such as Deacon, HFC, fritz, COG and their leader JG all know the context of what catnipper's "quote" is about. But if you put in an "a" instead of an "an", they will claim that is not what that person said. The context is what is important.

CuteOldGuy · 06-08-2011, 09:35 PM

Two completely different statements. Read, fellows! The nastiest comment you made was that I am a neocon. I am not.

Guest052813-01 · 06-09-2011, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Two completely different statements. Read, fellows! The nastiest comment you made was that I am a neocon. I am not.

Neither am I.

catnipdipper · 06-09-2011, 07:05 AM

NeoCon is kinda like having a name of an STD.

So if you say I am not a NeoCon we know you don't have Herpes but likely just the clap?

Liberals don't get STDs.

CuteOldGuy · 06-09-2011, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

Liberals don't get STDs.

I'm learning that liberals on here don't get much of anything.

MsElena · 06-09-2011, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm learning that liberals on here don't get much of anything.

Some, not all please.

catnipdipper · 06-09-2011, 09:54 AM

I think Liberals have a much more tolerant and acceptance of a broader view point in life.

The other side seems to be a bunch of pasty white, horned rimmed glasses, fraternity boys that strike me as feeling entitled and the masses be damned not to mention the sacred individual.

Frankly they piss me off.

thorough9 · 06-09-2011, 05:51 PM

Paul Revere warned the British...

The British...

British

Dondo7 · 06-09-2011, 10:08 PM

I know one thing, I bet Palin gives one hell of a hummer

CuteOldGuy · 06-09-2011, 10:55 PM

Catnip, I think you're right about some liberals. I know George McGovern, and there was never a kinder, more decent man in public service. He was the same in public as he was in private. A rare commodity these days. But overall, today's liberals are just as closed minded and intolerant as conservatives. Politics is no longer about serving the people, it is about obtaining and maintaining power, whatever the cost.

And even though Palin turned out to be accidentally right about Paul Revere, she fits into that category as well. She got a few moments in the national spotlight, and became addicted to the attention.