PDA

View Full Version : Sarah Palin Los Angeles Times: Palin claims Paul Revere warned the British




RonPaulFanInGA
06-03-2011, 04:35 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-claims-paul-revere-warned-the-british-that-they-werent-gonna-be-takin-away-our-arms.html

sailingaway
06-03-2011, 04:40 PM
I posted a redacted version of 'Paul Revere's Ride' in the opposing candidate version of this thread, I just thought that was really sad. I thought at first it was just a slip of the tongue but then she went on about how he warned them not to take our guns (?) Now, I don't know what to think. .

Galileo Galilei
06-03-2011, 04:45 PM
we were all British in 1775. I think she meant the british were issued a warning. This is a non-story.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-03-2011, 04:46 PM
Paul Revere did warn the British -- the British rebels :p

Paul Revere never said the British are Coming....that would be idiotic as everyone was British at the time -- he said the Regulars are coming. Just a little history.

sailingaway
06-03-2011, 04:47 PM
It's not a 'story' but she really didn't seem to know who he was. You can see her grasping for it. Failure of education and unlikely to come up in a presidential decision, perhaps, but a sad commentary on our schools, all the same.

Anti Federalist
06-03-2011, 07:10 PM
It's not a 'story' but she really didn't seem to know who he was. You can see her grasping for it. Failure of education and unlikely to come up in a presidential decision, perhaps, but a sad commentary on our schools, all the same.

Well, the story is that she's as dumb as box of rocks.

Really, she was flailing everywhere for an answer.

Running for president, the answer to who Paul Revere is should be as simple as reciting your name.

YumYum
06-03-2011, 07:18 PM
Well, the story is that she's as dumb as box of rocks.

Really, she was flailing everywhere for an answer.

Running for president, the answer to who Paul Revere is should be as simple as reciting your name.

While I think that Palin got caught off guard and doesn't know 5th grade American history, it is only fair to say that none of us really know the "truth" about our founding fathers. All that history is as bad as the myths that were created about Lincoln. We make these men out like they were "gods", and while some were honorable persons, I think the majority of them were self serving aristocrats who had an agenda to fatten their wallets. Wouldn't it be funny if Palin was right, and Paul Revere did warn the British? lol

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-03-2011, 07:26 PM
While I think that Palin got caught off guard and doesn't know 5th grade American history, it is only fair to say that none of us really know the "truth" about our founding fathers. All that history is as bad as the myths that were created about Lincoln. We make these men out like they were "gods", and while some were honorable persons, I think the majority of them were self serving aristocrats who had an agenda to fatten their wallets. Wouldn't it be funny if Palin was right, and Paul Revere did warn the British? lol

You would be right in regards to the Federalists as self-serving aristocrats, but the Anti-Federalists were the voices of the individual. Thomas Jefferson was called the Peoples President and Man of the People, and the history backs it up. If you read Albert Nock's book on Thomas Jefferson it is quite fascinating. The man was born a revolutionary and died a revolutionary. They (Federalists) really hated Jefferson because of his passion of liberty. Him, George Mason, and Patrick Henry tried to end the practice of slavery as an institution and they at least ended up abolishing the Slave trade. Self-serving? Not, really, though I am sure you could find a few cases to say otherwise, but these men hated Central Banks, fiat currencies, standing armies, all taxes, and every other power institution which is used to serve the elitists. They wouldn't have written the Anti-Federalist Papers to warn the people of the mischief of the Constitution to centralize and rob the people of their liberty and property.

Not to mention the fact most of the people who started and fought the revolution ended up paupered and destitute. If their motive was self-serving it surely failed for the vast majority.

I like the Anti-Federalists is of the mind the Republic died in 1787.

lynnf
06-03-2011, 07:28 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-claims-paul-revere-warned-the-british-that-they-werent-gonna-be-takin-away-our-arms.html

Sarah is so sunk -- proves she doesn't know WTF she talks about after 4 years of "training", if she even did any of that.
Remember the deer-in-the headlights with Katie Couric? Time for another one if she runs.

Anti Federalist
06-03-2011, 07:32 PM
While I think that Palin got caught off guard and doesn't know 5th grade American history, it is only fair to say that none of us really know the "truth" about our founding fathers. All that history is as bad as the myths that were created about Lincoln. We make these men out like they were "gods", and while some were honorable persons, I think the majority of them were self serving aristocrats who had an agenda to fatten their wallets. Wouldn't it be funny if Palin was right, and Paul Revere did warn the British? lol

Bet Ron Paul could have answered the question in a "home run" fashion.

YumYum
06-03-2011, 07:39 PM
Self-serving? Not, really, though I am sure you could find a few cases to say otherwise, but these men hated Central Banks, fiat currencies, standing armies, all taxes, and every other power institution which is used to serve the elitists.

What I don't understand is what did the British do that was so horrible to the colonists that there had to be a revolution? Washington was a land speculator. He had surveyed all that land West of the Appalachian Mountains and he and his buddies bought it up for a penny an acre. But they couldn't develop it, or sell it, because the British had made a deal with the Indians that the colonists would not settle on their land West of the mountains, and the British enforced this law. Nothing tyrannical here. This was a "contract". You have to respect the British for keeping their word. The other thing to note is according to Griffin's book, the colonies were continually printing fiat currency that always ended up in hyper-inflation. Finally, in 1751 the British government had had enough and made a law that the colonies could only print money backed by the Bank of England. Between 1751 and the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the colonies enjoyed the greatest prosperity that they had ever experienced with no inflation. So, there really was no reason to pull away from Britain at that time. I think the founders had an agenda, and our history books won't tell us all the truth.

sailingaway
06-03-2011, 07:53 PM
While I think that Palin got caught off guard and doesn't know 5th grade American history, it is only fair to say that none of us really know the "truth" about our founding fathers. All that history is as bad as the myths that were created about Lincoln. We make these men out like they were "gods", and while some were honorable persons, I think the majority of them were self serving aristocrats who had an agenda to fatten their wallets. Wouldn't it be funny if Palin was right, and Paul Revere did warn the British? lol


I've looked into Paul Revere, he caught my imagination. He didn't own a horse until he was 40 but bought one just to ride messages to NY for the rebels, and did warn cities when the British were sighted so they could call the militia out. He was a silversmith, and a decent, but not Great one. But he put his business and reputation on the line as they all did, all human and flawed as of course they were. And Yum Yum, they wanted self determination, and of course they had an agenda, but we benefited from it.

RonPaulFanInGA
06-03-2011, 07:54 PM
Remember the deer-in-the headlights with Katie Couric? Time for another one if she runs.

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/09/30/tomo/story.jpg

YumYum
06-03-2011, 08:22 PM
Vote for Trump/Palin 2012

running under the "You're fired!/ No, I quit!" ticket.

Legend1104
06-03-2011, 08:22 PM
What I don't understand is what did the British do that was so horrible to the colonists that there had to be a revolution? Washington was a land speculator. He had surveyed all that land West of the Appalachian Mountains and he and his buddies bought it up for a penny an acre. But they couldn't develop it, or sell it, because the British had made a deal with the Indians that the colonists would not settle on their land West of the mountains, and the British enforced this law. Nothing tyrannical here. This was a "contract". You have to respect the British for keeping their word. The other thing to note is according to Griffin's book, the colonies were continually printing fiat currency that always ended up in hyper-inflation. Finally, in 1751 the British government had had enough and made a law that the colonies could only print money backed by the Bank of England. Between 1751 and the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the colonies enjoyed the greatest prosperity that they had ever experienced with no inflation. So, there really was no reason to pull away from Britain at that time. I think the founders had an agenda, and our history books won't tell us all the truth.

Have you ever read common sense? The british did not help make us wealthy. We were becoming wealthy on our own. They never cared for amercians until they saw a profit. Then they began bleeding us and crippling our economy for the "mother country."

YumYum
06-03-2011, 08:27 PM
Have you ever read common sense? The british did not help make us wealthy. We were becoming wealthy on our own. They never cared for amercians until they saw a profit. Then they began bleeding us and crippling our economy for the "mother country."

How did they "bleed" us? I think our current government taxes us today way more than the British government taxed the colonists. Also, look at Canada. They stuck it out with the Brits and they are doing way better than we are.

sailingaway
06-03-2011, 08:48 PM
How did they "bleed" us? I think our current government taxes us today way more than the British government taxed the colonists. Also, look at Canada. They stuck it out with the Brits and they are doing way better than we are.

They weren't until we got intertwined with the British again after WWI, though....

that's half tongue in cheek, but our current problems are of our own making and don't come from the American revolution.

Golding
06-03-2011, 08:52 PM
What do you expect? She comes from a public school. :collins:

Legend1104
06-03-2011, 09:01 PM
What does that have to do with anything I said? Just because our government is "bleeding us" worse does not negate the fact that the British were "bleeding" the American colonies (I did not say bleeding us dry by the way). They imposed the Navigation Acts which restricted who we could trade with. It forced us to trade only with Britain. Plus we were not allowed to build many products in America. We were only allowed to produce most of our goods in the raw form but not able to actually create a lot of our own products which hindered American business and forced our dependency on Britain. They used our wealth and industry for their benefit and at our disadvantage.

amy31416
06-03-2011, 09:06 PM
Vote for Trump/Palin 2012

running under the "You're fired!/ No, I quit!" ticket.

That right there's some funny shit. :p

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-03-2011, 09:09 PM
I've looked into Paul Revere, he caught my imagination. He didn't own a horse until he was 40 but bought one just to ride messages to NY for the rebels, and did warn cities when the British were sighted so they could call the militia out. He was a silversmith, and a decent, but not Great one. But he put his business and reputation on the line as they all did, all human and flawed as of course they were. And Yum Yum, they wanted self determination, and of course they had an agenda, but we benefited from it.

Everyone was British....He warned cities when the REGULARS (AKA Kings Army) were incoming. It amazes me the amount of people in this country who do not realize that everyone was British in 1776. Until the Treaty of Paris was signed we were still technically British subjects -- we had to win our independence from the Crown.

sailingaway
06-03-2011, 09:10 PM
That right there's some funny shit. :p

Yeah, it was!

sailingaway
06-03-2011, 09:11 PM
Everyone was British....He warned cities when the REGULARS (AKA Kings Army) were incoming. It amazes me the amount of people in this country who do not realize that everyone was British in 1776. Until the Treaty of Paris was signed we were still technically British subjects -- we had to win our independence from the Crown.

I know everyone was British, but we were 'Colonials' which meant, amongst other things, we had no representation in their legislature. So 'they' were the British, to my mind.

Legend1104
06-03-2011, 09:18 PM
I have heard that he may have said red coats (which was the name that colonists used to refer to the British army), but yeah they would not have said British.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-03-2011, 09:19 PM
I know everyone was British, but we were 'Colonials' which meant, amongst other things, we had no representation in their legislature. So 'they' were the British, to my mind.

Perhaps, but you are talking about Paul Revere not yourself. Frankly, it is highly absurd to think Paul Revere strode down mainstreet crying ' The British are Coming ' in a British city, where everyone was British. They would have looked at him like a goddamn fool.

Legend1104
06-03-2011, 09:23 PM
Another interesting bit of history. Paul Revere is one of the first major propaganists in American history. He was the artist behind the famous Boston Massacre engraving. It was engraved with massive amounts of bias against the British soldiers.

Plus Paul Revere also was captured on his "midnight ride" by the British and actually did not warn that many people. He was later let go by the British because they did not think he was of worth and they did not have time to keep prisoners as they were in the process of marching to Concord.

Anti Federalist
06-03-2011, 10:33 PM
Another interesting bit of history. Paul Revere is one of the first major propaganists in American history. He was the artist behind the famous Boston Massacre engraving. It was engraved with massive amounts of bias against the British soldiers.

Successful agitprop is successful.

sailingaway
06-03-2011, 10:42 PM
Perhaps, but you are talking about Paul Revere not yourself. Frankly, it is highly absurd to think Paul Revere strode down mainstreet crying ' The British are Coming ' in a British city, where everyone was British. They would have looked at him like a goddamn fool.

Well, I never thought those were his precise words. I never even thought he ran down the street crying anything. My understanding is that there were specific people he made contact with in each town, presumably by knocking on their doors. But 'poetic license' doesn't offend me.

sailingaway
06-03-2011, 10:43 PM
Another interesting bit of history. Paul Revere is one of the first major propaganists in American history. He was the artist behind the famous Boston Massacre engraving. It was engraved with massive amounts of bias against the British soldiers.

Plus Paul Revere also was captured on his "midnight ride" by the British and actually did not warn that many people. He was later let go by the British because they did not think he was of worth and they did not have time to keep prisoners as they were in the process of marching to Concord.

He wasnt warning in volume, as I said. There were leaders in specific towns he had to bring word to, and he did. He was detained and released, I think in New York. I don't believe he was actually arrested, but they had been watching him. He didn't have any letters on him, just information in his head, this trip, and they eventually let him go.

libertarian4321
06-04-2011, 01:39 AM
we were all British in 1775. I think she meant the british were issued a warning. This is a non-story.

The clip shows that Sarah Palin is an idiot, and at this point, anything showing Sarah Palin is an idiot is not a big story- just another day.

BTW, she also screwed up when she started talking about "bells." Revere didn't ring church bells, he lit a lantern.

libertarian4321
06-04-2011, 01:51 AM
Everyone was British....He warned cities when the REGULARS (AKA Kings Army) were incoming. It amazes me the amount of people in this country who do not realize that everyone was British in 1776. Until the Treaty of Paris was signed we were still technically British subjects -- we had to win our independence from the Crown.

In the minds of the British and Loyalists, perhaps. I suspect the American revolutionaries would have had a serious objection to being called "British subjects" after the Declaration of Independence.

Jim Casey
06-04-2011, 03:11 AM
If Palin does decide to run in 2012, she is going to be center stage throughout the nomination process that's for sure. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping she wins the Republican nomination and emerges victorious against Obama in the general election.

This is a brilliant response by Sarah Palin. Instead of discussing historical military tactics, she instead tells her own story that is indeed quite sensual and paints a picture in your head that includes the sound of ringing bells and gunshots. There is a much larger market for herstory than history, as is evidenced by the rapidly expanding romance novel sector of literature. It is about time the political arena began catering to that demand.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-04-2011, 07:16 AM
In the minds of the British and Loyalists, perhaps. I suspect the American revolutionaries would have had a serious objection to being called "British subjects" after the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, they would have and rightly so, however, it doesn't change the fact that the Crown considered them his subjects. We had to tell the Crown fuck off in a long Independence War and we won and removed ourselves from that filth. We were free men...for a time.

sailingaway
06-04-2011, 08:00 AM
If Palin does decide to run in 2012, she is going to be center stage throughout the nomination process that's for sure. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping she wins the Republican nomination and emerges victorious against Obama in the general election.

Well, I think most of us here are hoping RON wins the nomination process and emerges victorious against Obama....

sailingaway
06-04-2011, 08:02 AM
The clip shows that Sarah Palin is an idiot, and at this point, anything showing Sarah Palin is an idiot is not a big story- just another day.

BTW, she also screwed up when she started talking about "bells." Revere didn't ring church bells, he lit a lantern.


You mean his friend did, he was waiting on the other bank of the river to spread the message being sent by the lanterns. That a message was being spread was supposed to be under the radar. There were troops quartered in town, too.

angelatc
06-04-2011, 08:16 AM
Well after a little intersting research, It turns out Sarah Palin is right. (http://dailycaller.com/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com %2F2011%2F06%2F03%2Fsarah-palin-revises-history-of-paul-reveres-ride%2F)The signal from the north tower was a lantern to indicate whether the Redcoats were departing Boston for Lexington on land, by way of Boston neck the longer southern route, or by Sea, the more direct route,across the Charles river and on to Lexington.

Revere’s ride triggered a flexible system of “Alarm and Muster”. Bells, drums, alarm guns, bonfires and a trumpet were used for rapid communication from town to town, notifying the rebels in dozens of eastern Massachusetts villages that they should muster their militias because the regulars in numbers greater than 500 were leaving Boston, with possible hostile intentions. This system was so effective that people in towns 25 miles (40 km) from Boston were aware of the army’s movements while they were still unloading boats in Cambridge.

Revere did indeed have contact with “the British”. About 20 Men, from the 5th regiment, had been dispersed along the route to intercept any messengers – like Paul Revere. Revere escaped the sentries closer to Boston and wasn’t stopped until later in the evening. Revere told them it was too late – they had failed their mission. The British could have called off the their march on Concord, they were warned that Militias had been mustered and were waiting for them.

In spite of this the British continued on to Lexington, where there was a brief fight that the small group of Rebels lost, and then on to Concord where the shot heard “round the world” occured. The British took heavy casualties and had to retreat back to Boston under fire. Massachusetts was now in open revolt.


"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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=ZAvQfZFbLp4C&pg=SL20-PA40&dq=Paul+Revere+bells+and+gunshots&hl=en&ei=Lo_pTaSFAdSftgfXyPzBAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Paul%20Revere%20bells%20and%20gunshots&f=false) and the heavy beat of drums could be heard for many miles in the night air."

//

Jim Casey
06-04-2011, 08:29 AM
Well, I think most of us here are hoping RON wins the nomination process and emerges victorious against Obama....
Ron needs to learn some lessons first. I like when Ron proposed a reading list to Rudy some 4 years ago. Perhaps Sarah could propose one for Ron. Recommend some choice pieces of literature from Harlequin. If Ron is too fiscally conservative to fit the federal reserve note price tag placed on the reading list into his budget, he could find copies through torrent trading.

http://btjunkie.org/search?q=harlequin+romance

sailingaway
06-04-2011, 08:30 AM
//

What do you know! It wasn't in Boston, though, the bells. North where they mustered the militia that might have been their system.

However, the part about telling the British they couldn't take our arms, rather than telling the towns where the British were going to invade, and Palin's manner in the video, still seemed like she didn't know what she was talking about in the larger sense of what PR was doing. I hardly think it is going to be a big point in the presidency, though.

Airborn
06-04-2011, 05:00 PM
If Palin does decide to run in 2012, she is going to be center stage throughout the nomination process that's for sure. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping she wins the Republican nomination and emerges victorious against Obama in the general election.

Are you here to support Palin or Paul for the nomination? Going by your post history, I am wondering why are you even here. I'm sure there is a Sarah Palin forum out there with one or two active threads going a week..