So now the media will erupt for weeks on end about what an “idiot” and “fool” and “know-nothing” Obama is, just like it erupted over Sarah Palin’s (accurate) comments about Paul Revere?

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/09...-knew-lincoln/

Oh yeah, that's going to happen. But seriously, The President just had a minor loss of memory and everyone makes mistakes, right?

Sarah Palin, meanwhile is just stupid and you don't have to check if she's wrong or right, because she's just stupid......and she probably has cooties....................and I think she left the cap off the peanut butter.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Oh yeah, that's going to happen. But seriously, The President just had a minor loss of memory and everyone makes mistakes, right?

Sarah Palin, meanwhile is just stupid and you don't have to check if she's wrong or right, because she's just stupid......and she probably has cooties....................and I think she left the cap off the peanut butter.

That's probably about right.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

That's probably about right.

I knew you'd agree with me.

Checking the facts, Lincoln was thefirst Republican President - the party being started in 1854 in opposition to slavery. The party was founded in 1854, dominated the North by 1858 and got Lincoln elected in 1860. Wikipedia doesn't name the founder but it certainly was NOT Lincoln.

What I don't like about the quoted article is the insistance that Palin was right in her misstatements about Revere. Palin stuck to her story about the purpose of Revere's mission. Revere's job, which wasn't finished, was to warn the COLONISTS of the impending onslaught of Redcoats. He only 'warned' the Regulars (you can't really call them British since, technically, we were ALL British in the Colonies) when he was captured and told them *at gunpoint* that the militias in Lexington and Concord were armed and would not lay down their arms.

I would like to see Obama's reaction if HE got called on his flub since I saw Palin's reaction.

I suspect there'd be plenty of double-talk.

Originally Posted by djplong

Checking the facts, Lincoln was thefirst Republican President - the party being started in 1854 in opposition to slavery. The party was founded in 1854, dominated the North by 1858 and got Lincoln elected in 1860. Wikipedia doesn't name the founder but it certainly was NOT Lincoln.

What I don't like about the quoted article is the insistance that Palin was right in her misstatements about Revere. Palin stuck to her story about the purpose of Revere's mission. Revere's job, which wasn't finished, was to warn the COLONISTS of the impending onslaught of Redcoats. He only 'warned' the Regulars (you can't really call them British since, technically, we were ALL British in the Colonies) when he was captured and told them *at gunpoint* that the militias in Lexington and Concord were armed and would not lay down their arms.

I would like to see Obama's reaction if HE got called on his flub since I saw Palin's reaction.

I suspect there'd be plenty of double-talk.

Don't confuse them with facts...

Originally Posted by djplong

Checking the facts, Lincoln was thefirst Republican President - the party being started in 1854 in opposition to slavery. The party was founded in 1854, dominated the North by 1858 and got Lincoln elected in 1860. Wikipedia doesn't name the founder but it certainly was NOT Lincoln.

What I don't like about the quoted article is the insistance that Palin was right in her misstatements about Revere. Palin stuck to her story about the purpose of Revere's mission. Revere's job, which wasn't finished, was to warn the COLONISTS of the impending onslaught of Redcoats. He only 'warned' the Regulars (you can't really call them British since, technically, we were ALL British in the Colonies) when he was captured and told them *at gunpoint* that the militias in Lexington and Concord were armed and would not lay down their arms.

I would like to see Obama's reaction if HE got called on his flub since I saw Palin's reaction.

I suspect there'd be plenty of double-talk.

You're picking at straws. The basics of Palin's recollections of Revere's famous night were correct and you're nit picking. You can't deny that Revere told the British the colonists were waiting for them, as Palin said. (By your account, maybe we should remember Revere as a traitor)

As noted in the article, she said this on the fly, from her memory and without the use of cue cards, tele-prompter or writing on the back of her hand.

Meanwhile, there's no qualified historian who would ever suggest that Lincoln was the Republican Party's founder. Obama spoke in error in a speech that was prepared well in advance and written to portray himself in the best light. If, as has been suggested, he deviated from the script and that's how he made this error; well it just makes Palin look even better by comparison.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

You're picking at straws. The basics of Palin's recollections of Revere's famous night were correct and you're nit picking. You can't deny that Revere told the British the colonists were waiting for them, as Palin said. (By your account, maybe we should remember Revere as a traitor)

As noted in the article, she said this on the fly, from her memory and without the use of cue cards, tele-prompter or writing on the back of her hand.

Meanwhile, there's no qualified historian who would ever suggest that Lincoln was the Republican Party's founder. Obama spoke in error in a speech that was prepared well in advance and written to portray himself in the best light. If, as has been suggested, he deviated from the script and that's how he made this error; well it just makes Palin look even better by comparison.

Of course! It really doesn't matter what Obama says, because the people who like him believe whatever comes out of his mouth. Those who don't like him, know that whenever he opens his mouth, we are all going to lose money...

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

Of course! It really doesn't matter what Obama says, because the people who like him believe whatever comes out of his mouth. Those who don't like him, know that whenever he opens his mouth, we are all going to lose money...

Originally Posted by RichieLion

You're picking at straws. The basics of Palin's recollections of Revere's famous night were correct and you're nit picking. You can't deny that Revere told the British the colonists were waiting for them, as Palin said. (By your account, maybe we should remember Revere as a traitor)

As noted in the article, she said this on the fly, from her memory and without the use of cue cards, tele-prompter or writing on the back of her hand.

Meanwhile, there's no qualified historian who would ever suggest that Lincoln was the Republican Party's founder. Obama spoke in error in a speech that was prepared well in advance and written to portray himself in the best light. If, as has been suggested, he deviated from the script and that's how he made this error; well it just makes Palin look even better by comparison.

No, I'm not nit-picking. Here's here original quote:

He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed

The "ringing those bells" was warning the COLONISTS - *that* was Job #1.

Only after he was captured and with a gun pressed to his chest did he tell the Regulars that militia was armed. When he, Prescott and Dawes set out, it was never their intention to warn the *Regulars*. After all, doesn't that defeat the purpose of warning the *Colonists*? What Revere did was a last-ditch gamblein hopes of delaying the advancement of the Regulars.

And I absolutely agree about your point concerning that it was off-the-cuff whereas Obama's comment was written down.

It doesn't bother me that Palin made that gaffe. *Personally* I think it was an ad-hoc attempt at trying to frame a pro-2nd-Ammendment sound bite and, quite frankly, I find nothing wrong with that. (It's not against her nature - look at some of her comments on her show - framing animal behaviors in nature with her narratives) What gets me is her refusal to admit when she makes even a small slip-up.

I *suspect* that she might not have even KNOWN about what Revere did when he was captured. Of course I can't prove it but the way she clung to her story *hints* that she was told by researchers "well, technically, you were partially right" and latched onto that with a death grip.

Like I said, a little gaffe or slip-up doesn't make a difference to me. It was the aftermath that irked me.

But also, true to your point, I don't see headlines in yesterday's or today's news sources calling Obama on HIS misstatement - at least not yet and there's been plenty of time.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Oh yeah, that's going to happen. But seriously, The President just had a minor loss of memory and everyone makes mistakes, right?

Sarah Palin, meanwhile is just stupid and you don't have to check if she's wrong or right, because she's just stupid......and she probably has cooties....................and I think she left the cap off the peanut butter.

We didn't hear about the cooties. Is that something personal between you and her?

Personally, I don't give a hoot if President Obama flubbed when he said Lincoln founded the Republicans. I do believe that Lincoln would be ashamed of the modern Republicans.

What does amaze me is how some of the uber-conservatives on this forum - as well as at least one poster who does it just to iritate - will obviously spend so much time trolling the Internet looking for video clips of Democrat gaffes or extremist right wing articles or quotations that are obscure to post on this forum. I do enjoy seeing the ones posted in humor like Richie does most of the time with his dry sarcasm, but some are just meant to be mean spirited.

I realize most of us are fully retired but is that the most fun you can find to do in The Villages?

Q: What's the difference between a liberal and a puppy?

A: A puppy stops whining after it grows up.


By the way Bugsy, it does not take much time to find interesting things about Left-wing moonbats on the internet. They are everywhere.

Originally Posted by djplong

No, I'm not nit-picking. What gets me is her refusal to admit when she makes even a small slip-up.

No matter how many times you rewrite the anal exam you've given the story of what Sarah Palin said to the reporter, it always comes out to the point that Paul Revere did in fact tell (warn?) the British that the Colonists were armed and waiting. If that's not nit-picking a story told on the fly............

OK, you can keep to your thinking, I don't care. Anyone who really reads it will get it.

Originally Posted by buggyone

I do believe that Lincoln would be ashamed of the modern Republicans.

I don't know why you think so. Lincoln was dedicated to the freedom of the slaves; and the Republicans, right now, are still our best chance to not becoming "slaves" of a omnipotent federal oversight into all aspects of our lives, being incrementally advanced by the radicals of the new Democrat Party.

Abraham Lincoln believed in our honored tradition of free men of self determination unencumbered by the weight of royalty or government to pursue his own individual dream and create his own future. This sound like anything Nancy Pelosi would say?