Please run for President

That was one of the implied intents of his mission.
Originally Posted by herfacechair

What was?

1) Paul Revere INTENDED to be CAPTURED.
2) Paul Revere INTENDED to WARN THE BRITISH (regulars/redcoats).

Choose one.

If you chose #1 then you sir are and idiot. Nobody sets out to be captured and taken prisoner. Especially when it ignores their military orders.

If you chose #2 then you sir are and idiot. Revere was supposed to AVOID the British soldiers. In fact, he did avoid some before he was captured by others. How was Paul Revere supposed to warn the British soldiers of anything when he was ordered to have no contact with them? Telepathy?

What were Paul Revere's orders? Show me where it says he's supposed to stop and chat with the regulars.

I bet Paul Revere's orders are in the 24,000 emails of Sarah's that got released!!!!

What was?

1) Paul Revere INTENDED to be CAPTURED.
2) Paul Revere INTENDED to WARN THE BRITISH (regulars/redcoats).

Choose one.

If you chose #1 then you sir are and idiot. Nobody sets out to be captured and taken prisoner. Especially when it ignores their military orders.

If you chose #2 then you sir are and idiot. Revere was supposed to AVOID the British soldiers. In fact, he did avoid some before he was captured by others. How was Paul Revere supposed to warn the British soldiers of anything when he was ordered to have no contact with them? Telepathy?

What were Paul Revere's orders? Show me where it says he's supposed to stop and chat with the regulars. Originally Posted by Longermonger

Would it kill you to read what I type with the intentions of understanding what I said?

You're killing me. I wrote that post in a way that a 9th grader could understand what I'm talking about. People like you make it hard for me to defend the results of the American education system.

Again, read my post in its entirety. This time, without your horse-blinders. Then, take note of what I bolded in red.

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. Originally Posted by herfacechair

What part of, "Let's see this from our founding father's eyes" didn't you understand?

Also, do I need to dumb down my explanation of English Common Law, to include property rights and due process so that even you could understand what I'm talking about?

Our founding fathers, as well as the British, understood very well that you couldn't just walk up to someone and confiscate their property without due process of the law. What the regulars were doing went against the contract that our founding fathers forefathers had with the King's forefathers.

Under English Common Law, aspects of the law were a no brainer.

The Regulars knew that the Colonials were not going to give up their arms. That's something they wouldn't have done had they been in our founding father's shoes. The moment they heard the bells, drums and gunfire, the regulars knew that they were not going to get our arms without resistance.

As I said in my post:

"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." - herfacechair

That was a no brainer to both, the colonials and the regulars. Again, you have to see this from our founding father's eyes, not yours.

You're extremely ignorant of American history, and it painfully shows in your posts. I highly recommend that you get a clue about what our history is about, so that you could get a clue about what you're talking about, before you throw strawman arguments and strawman questions at me and accuse me of being you.

HerFaceChair, Longer isn't going to listen. He will be back spewing his ignorance in even bigger and bolded capital letters. Not going to let the facts get in the way of his opinion, especially if it's about Sarah Palin. Palin could say "The grass is green in summer." and Longer would respond with "What an idiot! Didn't she see that brown patch over there? So she can't even tell colors!" And if she said, "My name is Sarah Palin," he'd demand to see her birth certificate to make sure it was right. Nevermind that Palin is her married name.

But thanks for your posts in this thread, Chair. I learned something. I had it wrong from the beginning, but I checked up on your research, and you are right. Thanks. BTW, I never taught history! LOL!

Thanks COG. History has been one of my passions since grade-school, I never taught it either.

Also, I've argued with Longer's type over the years, have them categorized, and am familiar with what you described in your posts.

You're also lucky to be in the same area that Staci Stacked is in.

You have to understand that longermonger, does not believe that the consitution applys anymore and that the opinions and view points of the founding fathers no longer apply to the modern world.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Sarah Palin makes a Paul Revere reference that all the news types jump on - yet she's proven absolutely and positively correct. But she's really really dumb.

Andrew Weiner Tweets dick pics all over the country, including to underage girls - but he's really really smart.

Have I got that right?

KShunter, you are letting facts and logic get in the way of "the agenda."

Chair, Staci is a dear friend, I see you had a great time with her.

Dirty, there are too many that feel that way these days. *sigh* It's sad. We had a wonderful country.

What a buch of BS... This is a case of "the emperor's new clothes". She got the story wrong - plain and simple. All of the "I'm so mush smarter than you because i get it" BS is pointless. The emperor's new clothes. If you believe that an alarm system, put in place by a guerilla force, who was resisting and fighting against an organized and brutally efficient colonial power, was designed to "warn" the colonial power, then you're as big an idiot as Sarah Palin. Politics be damned, she got the story wrong and all of the "useless to the convo" and arbitrary facts in the world can't and won't erase that truth. Keep telling that lie to yourselves: she was spot on. What a partisan propagandist crock of shit.....

And COG, if you loved this country so much, then it would seem to me that you'd want the truth known. Paul Revere was a patriot long before even your ancient ass was born, AND he was a patriot because he set out to warn the colonists - not the fucking British.

History will not be re-written to suit the whimsical musing of an incompetent politician. It was here before Palin and will be here after she, and ,all of her historically-gullible supporters are gone, and Paul Revere's patriotic role in American history has long been defined.

The depths to which partisan politics has stooped in order to claim a "political victory" is astounding. And that's what's wrong with this country: People are willing to accept a outright, bold-faced LIE and call it truth just because it came from their side of the fence. F'n idiots............

What a buch of BS... This is a case of "the emperor's new clothes". She got the story wrong - plain and simple. All of the "I'm so mush smarter than you because i get it" BS is pointless. The emperor's new clothes. If you believe that an alarm system, put in place by a guerilla force, who was resisting and fighting against an organized and brutally efficient colonial power, was designed to "warn" the colonial power, then you're as big an idiot as Sarah Palin. Politics be damned, she got the story wrong and all of the "useless to the convo" and arbitrary facts in the world can't and won't erase that truth. Keep telling that lie to yourselves: she was spot on. What a partisan propagandist crock of shit.....

And COG, if you loved this country so much, then it would seem to me that you'd want the truth known. Paul Revere was a patriot long before even your ancient ass was born, AND he was a patriot because he set out to warn the colonists - not the fucking British.

History will not be re-written to suit the whimsical musing of an incompetent politician. It was here before Palin and will be here after she, and ,all of her historically-gullible supporters are gone, and Paul Revere's patriotic role in American history has long been defined.

The depths to which partisan politics has stooped in order to claim a "political victory" is astounding. And that's what's wrong with this country: People are willing to accept a outright, bold-faced LIE and call it truth just because it came from their side of the fence. F'n idiots............ Originally Posted by thorough9

Well, if you're on the left, you think Palin's an idiot and if you're on the right, you're trying to change Wikipedia to get the info on Paul Revere's ride to match Palin's statements. I had to do a search through 4 pages of Google to find an interview with a history professor on NPR (one of the most liberal news sources around) to say that Palin's interpretation was correct:

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011...on-paul-revere

So there's your bold-faced TRUTH coming from the other side of the fence. STFU and stay off the board if you can't quote with unbiased facts.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. Sarah Palin makes a Paul Revere reference that all the news types jump on - yet she's proven absolutely and positively correct. No, you don't understand correctly. She was wrong and you have to be a complete fucking moron to think she was right. Are you a complete fucking moron? But she's really really dumb. Yes she is, but she does know how to make money, which you have to give her credit.

Andrew Weiner Tweets dick pics all over the country, including to underage girls - but he's really really smart. There is no proof he twatted pics to underage girls dipshit.

Have I got that right? No, see above. Originally Posted by Kshunter

You make me laugh kshunter.

Jesus, now National Public Radio (a BIG Palin supporter) says she got it right. NPR! I don't know who the fucking morons are anymore. I need a program.

If NPR says Palin got it right, Palin must have gotten it wrong, because NPR never gets anything right. I'm so confused.

Well, if you're on the left, you think Palin's an idiot and if you're on the right, you're trying to change Wikipedia to get the info on Paul Revere's ride to match Palin's statements. I had to do a search through 4 pages of Google to find an interview with a history professor on NPR (one of the most liberal news sources around) to say that Palin's interpretation was correct:

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011...on-paul-revere

So there's your bold-faced TRUTH coming from the other side of the fence. STFU and stay off the board if you can't quote with unbiased facts. Originally Posted by fritz3552

That's one professor out of how many? I can say that the moon is made of dried rat shit, and there will be at least one professor to agree with me, especially if it gets his name in the papers. F'n idiotic reference. STFU! No....

BTW, George Washington chopped down an apple tree, Benjamin Franklin tied a wagon-pin to the kite, and we won our independence from Spain... Oh, yeah, and paul Revere warned the British that the Americans were coming. F'n idiots. ROTFLMAO.

Well Thorough, your well reasoned and logical response is irrefutable. I guess the good professor for National Public Radio, and others who have spoken up don't know what the fuck they're talking about. At least I don't. Thank you for setting us all straight. It would have been highly embarrassing to rely on the Professor and Paul Revere's own journal for information. Whew! Glad we got that straight!

Would it kill you to read what I type with the intentions of understanding what I said?

You're killing me. I wrote that post in a way that a 9th grader could understand what I'm talking about. People like you make it hard for me to defend the results of the American education system.

Again, read my post in its entirety. This time, without your horse-blinders. Then, take note of what I bolded in red.



What part of, "Let's see this from our founding father's eyes" didn't you understand?



Also, do I need to dumb down my explanation of English Common Law, to include property rights and due process so that even you could understand what I'm talking about?

Our founding fathers, as well as the British, understood very well that you couldn't just walk up to someone and confiscate their property without due process of the law. What the regulars were doing went against the contract that our founding fathers forefathers had with the King's forefathers.

Under English Common Law, aspects of the law were a no brainer.

The Regulars knew that the Colonials were not going to give up their arms. That's something they wouldn't have done had they been in our founding father's shoes. The moment they heard the bells, drums and gunfire, the regulars knew that they were not going to get our arms without resistance.

As I said in my post:

"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." - herfacechair

That was a no brainer to both, the colonials and the regulars. Again, you have to see this from our founding father's eyes, not yours.

You're extremely ignorant of American history, and it painfully shows in your posts. I highly recommend that you get a clue about what our history is about, so that you could get a clue about what you're talking about, before you throw strawman arguments and strawman questions at me and accuse me of being you. Originally Posted by herfacechair

You are arguing that Paul Revere (in effect, sorta-kinda) remotely 'warned' the British by being part of the group that set off the alarm system. I am arguing that Paul Revere only 'warned' the British IN PERSON when he boasted. He never INTENDED to be their prisoner, thus, he never intended to warn them.

The primary reason for the alarm system would be to alert the Colonists. The British didn't need to be alerted that "The British are coming!" because they already knew what they were doing. What you are arguing is that the secondary purpose of the alarm system was to alert the British that the Colonists were aware of their movement. An opposing argument could be made that this was just an unavoidable byproduct of the type of alarm system used. One of the biggest military advantages is surprise (what the British were trying to do). If the Colonist could have alerted each other without the British regulars being aware of it, they would have had a HUGE advantage. the Regulars could have entered a town thinking that they'd caught the Colonists sleeping, and could have been caught off guard.

Regardless, we are talking about two different things.