Please run for President

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! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Be snide, if you must, but the more that you talk, the more convincing evidence you provide that there is no correlation b/n age and knowledge. The only difference b/n a young fool and an old fool is XX years...

BTW, LOL,

Smoke-detectors are meant to warn the fire that it's not gonna take our things; it's not gonna burn our houses.

Burgular Alarms are meant to warn the burgulars that they can't have our vehicles.

The Alerts section is meant to warn the Pimps that we aren't gonna let them jump from behind doors and rob us.

That stinging sensation when you pee, is meant to warn the clap that we're not gonna just let it assault our genitalia. ROTFLMAO!!!

I guess that you can say that, by proximity, all of the above statements are true, but it's faulty logic and you have to be searching for a faulty justification to find it. Nookin for nub in all the wrong places.....

It's refreshing the way you are able to ignore the facts. Must make life easier. I'm not going to criticize.

And while I will grow old, I refuse to grow up!

thorough9: 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.

In order to claim that something is "BS," quotations used strongly here, then you have to prove your argument right. So far, your side of the argument has miserably failed to do so… refusing to treat Sarah Palin's comment the way your side of the argument would expect us to treat your comments if you were to say one thing but mean another.

What you're dismissing as "emperor's new cloths" is nothing but you putting stress shields up to protect an ego that refuses to admit that it's wrong… an ego that's blinded by partisanship… an ego that's hell bent on finding something, anything, wrong with the other side of the argument.

CuteOldGuy was right about you. Sarah could say that the sun rises in the morning, and you'd argue that she was wrong, as the sun isn't actually lifting itself from the ground, here on Earth.

Let's face it. Your side of the argument, typical of those that I've debated against over these years, show a serious deficit in history related knowledge.

thorough9: 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.

You see, this is precisely what I'm talking about when I say that your side of the argument shows an extreme shortage of knowledge when it comes to history.

First, the alarm system that our founding fathers had in place wasn't their invention. It had been in place for centuries, and was carried over to the Americas by the European colonial powers. It evolved as time passed. Its immediate purpose was to get the townspeople into action during an emergency, and to get its armed elements to stand by to repel borders in case an enemy was sighted.

It also had secondary purposes.

It served as a psychological reminder to the threat that the town was ready to fight. In the colonial's case, given my English Common Law philosophy explanation, a secondary purpose was to warn the regulars that they were not just going to walk up and take the colonials' arms.

Until you understand the philosophy surrounding English Common Law, you're leaving yourself shorthanded when talking about why the colonials did what they did.

Second, the grievance that the colonials had against the UK had more to do with the later's violation of a contract that the Colonies and the King were a part of. This was an agreement that the colonial's forefathers had with the King's forefather. The Declaration of Independence lists some of those violations. This wasn't about the UK's efficiency. They could've been the best colonial power on the planet, or the worst. It wouldn't have mattered, as they violated an agreement between the Colonies and the King.

thorough9: 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..... REPEAT POINT

Using your logic, we could assume that President Obama actually believed that we had more than 50 states, or that he's a Muslim, based on comments and a response that he made… where he said one thing, but meant another. We could also use your logic to assume that Al Gore actually believed that Zebras had spots instead of stripes, based on his not getting his statement about that animal right.

We could also assume, with your continued resistance to all attacks of reason, that you've never said one thing, but meant another, when you spoke. You "never" misspoke before.

I stand by what I said.

Sarah knew what she was talking about, but didn't communicate it properly. Her explanation came closer to the truth about Paul Revere than the kiddie version that you like to argue. I'll address that with your statements to CuteOldGuy.

thorough9: And COG, if you loved this country so much, then it would seem to me that you'd want the truth known.

Don't mistake your incomplete knowledge of American history as "the truth." This comes across to me as you saying, "CuteOldGuy," if you love this country so much, you'd believe what I, thorough9, am saying."

He has reviewed the truth. You're dismissing it as a "lie," simply because it goes counter to what you're arguing.

thorough9: 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. REPEAT POINT

His job was to, as part of a group that ran out in teams of two, go through the countryside to activate the different towns' alarm system. Again, his mission had multiple purposes. The primary one was to get the colonials in line. It served an alternate one to. Once the alarm system was activated, it served as a warning to the regulars that the colonials weren't going to give up their militia's arms easily.

thorough9: 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. REPEAT POINT

We're not trying to re-write history.

If there's any rewriting that happened, it's with the version of American History that kids learn in schools these days. What I said is documented fact. It still stands. You need a more detailed knowledge about the colonials, including their train of thought, what they believed in, etc, before you dismiss what I'm saying as something that's based on "gullibility."

I guarantee you that if you bothered to research the facts, about our history, that you didn't learn in school, or that you refused to learn earlier, you'll find that you'll have to relearn that, and other periods of history. There's so much information, real information, on our history, that it's criminal that you, and others on your side of the argument, don't bother yourself with studying those facts.

If anybody holds revised history near and dear, it's you, and those that argue on your side of the argument.

I stand by what I've said here, I'm arguing based on the facts that I've researched over the years.

thorough9: 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............

You've described yourself to a "T."

I highly doubt that you researched the things that I suggested you research, earlier in this thread. Had you done that, you'd know that I'm not throwing "BS" your way. If anybody has been giving the facts, it's those that are arguing from my side of the argument. We've delivered the goods, so to speak, and your side of the argument is demonstrating a lack of understanding of history.

Research actual history first. If you fail to do that, you won't have a leg to stand on when claiming that others are "embracing" a "bold faced lie," quotation used strongly here. This has nothing to do with partisanship, and everything to do with arguing based on fact.

Longermonger: 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.

This statement shows the difference between knowledge of history based on what one learned in school (your argument), and knowledge of history done by researching the facts not taught in high school (my argument).

The main difference between our arguments is the role that the English Common Law philosophy played in all of this.

English Common Law was a philosophy that both the British in the UK, and the colonials living in the British dominions, understood. A lot of this philosophy was implied… it wasn't communicated directly, or by word.

The colonials activating their alarm system served the primary purpose of getting the colonials in line. It also had a secondary purpose… to warn the Regulars that they weren't going to walk in and take our arms easily. This is similar to someone, refusing to be evicted from his own home, sitting in his front porch with his weapon in hand.

In this scenario, he doesn't have to tell the cops that they're not going to take his property. He's communicating to them, indirectly, via an implied warning; that they're not going to take him away from his home.

Longermonger: 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.

The primary reason for the alarm system was to get the colonials to react against a threat… whether that was a fire, a massive fight breaking out, someone had a big message to get to the countryside, etc.

Also, nobody said anything about the "British," coming. The actual statement used was that the Regulars were coming… something that the colonials knew and expected.

By getting on line, or going on the green, etc, the colonials sent a clear signal to the threat… whether that was a foreign colonial power prior to the Revolution, or the Regulars during the Revolution… that they were not going to accomplish their objectives.

Longermonger: An opposing argument could be made that this was just an unavoidable byproduct of the type of alarm system used.

An opposing argument could be that some colonials were hard of hearing, so they needed the bells. Or, they were getting their trigger fingers worked up by firing their weapons… or… the drummers were practicing their drum beats in anticipation of the battle… or… this … or … that.

That's a non-argument.

That was also a part of psychological warfare. Let's get the colonials in line… then let's keep firing our guns, beating our drums, etc to not only keep the alarm going to get everybody in, but to send a message to the enemy… this was like the ancients beating their spears/swords against their shields…

Throw our forefather's mindset, operating under English Common Law into the mix, and you'll get one of the secondary purposes of the alarm system… to warn the Regulars that they weren't going to come in to take the colonial's weapons… and to hopefully deter them.

Remember, neither side wanted this to come to blows. The shot heard round the world had as much an impact on the colonials' mindset as it did the British in the UK.

Longermonger: One of the biggest military advantages is surprise (what the British were trying to do).

Achieving surprise by walking in the kill zone in an area they knew they were being monitored in?

The Regulars weren't trying to be tactical with this one. They were on a routine mission. This was going to be an administrative act, to stand the militia down and disarm them.

Longermonger: 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.

Again, this was an administrative act, like the cops going to your home to issue a summons. People weren't getting together that night, because they "knew" that the revolution was to start that evening.

Both sides didn't want war to break out, and were trying to prevent it up to the last minute. So both, the Regulars coming to these towns, and the colonials activating their alarm systems, did their respective duties "in your face" style… not thinking that a fight would break out that night.

Longermonger: Regardless, we are talking about two different things.

That's what it's looking like.

Smoke-detectors are meant to warn the fire that it's not gonna take our things; it's not gonna burn our houses.. Originally Posted by thorough9

Inductive fallacy.

It's refreshing the way you are able to ignore the facts. Must make life easier. I'm not going to criticize.

And while I will grow old, I refuse to grow up! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

+ 1000

I think I found the problem.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...WhatsNewsThird

During the time it took to have these back and forth exchanges..................... ..........Sarah Palin has become politically irrelevant!

She did make some good money tho.

politicaly irrevelant my ass. sure ,,keep wishing..lmao and so what if she made good money. you should try it.

Politically irrelevant Deacon.

Hey she didn't get my money ...................she took it from all the dumb ass white neos, gun show, pistol packing, pickup truck driving, ignorant, limp dick idiots that sent it in.


hahahahahahahahahaha!

I think I found the problem.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...WhatsNewsThird


Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm not surprised at all. I was a minority, in junior and senior high school, when it came to showing real interest in history and civics related topics... I was a "lone wolf" when it came to researching history related topics beyond what was being covered in class.

I even came across a straight "A" student, in the 90s, who talked about when the ancient Greeks and Romans landed in the Americas. When I questioned him, and told him that they didn't get that far, he claimed that his teacher told him that.

I remember a news segment, last decade, from the mainstream media. This segment talked about a test given to a statistical sample of regular Americans. This test asked questions that were also being asked during citizenship tests. Most failed to answer very basic questions correctly... whether that was history, civics or even current events related questions.

It's refreshing the way you are able to ignore the facts. Must make life easier. I'm not going to criticize.

And while I will grow old, I refuse to grow up! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Here's a fact for you: Paul Revere went on a ride proclaiming that, "the british are coming".

As for the guy with the toilet face..... yawn......
And make up your mind. Was Palin right or did she mis-speak. Flip-flopper.

Like I said earlier, I looked at the facts, and I think Palin got it right. Your source for the quote is a poem. I looked at Revere's account and contemporary writings.

Here's a fact for you: Paul Revere went on a ride proclaiming that, "the british are coming". Originally Posted by thorough9

That's not fact, but revised history.

Again, the colonial militias were the "National Guard Units" during the colonial times. The Royal Army was the Regular Army. Everybody considered themselves "British" or "English," they definitely saw themselves the subjects of the British Crown. Many proudly flew the Union Jack.

The facts show that Paul Revere said that the Regulars were coming. This makes sense, considering the fact that the idea of us being "Americans" didn't really kick in until long after the Revolutionary War.

As for the guy with the toilet face..... yawn......

And make up your mind. Was Palin right or did she mis-speak. Flip-flopper. Originally Posted by thorough9

"The fact remains. Sarah Palin didn't get her point across properly, but she touched up on something that's closer to reality than what watered down version that 4th graders learned." - herfacechair

"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." - herfacechair

"Sarah knew what she was talking about, but didn't communicate it properly. Her explanation came closer to the truth about Paul Revere than the kiddie version that you like to argue." - herfacechair

Either you love to use strawman arguments/questions in the face of defeat, or you honest to God can't understand basic English. If it's the later, please hire an interpreter who'd be able to break this down for you in retard terms.

That's not fact, but revised history.

Again, the colonial militias were the "National Guard Units" during the colonial times. The Royal Army was the Regular Army. Everybody considered themselves "British" or "English," they definitely saw themselves the subjects of the British Crown. Many proudly flew the Union Jack.

The facts show that Paul Revere said that the Regulars were coming. This makes sense, considering the fact that the idea of us being "Americans" didn't really kick in until long after the Revolutionary War.



"The fact remains. Sarah Palin didn't get her point across properly, but she touched up on something that's closer to reality than what watered down version that 4th graders learned." - herfacechair

"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." - herfacechair

"Sarah knew what she was talking about, but didn't communicate it properly. Her explanation came closer to the truth about Paul Revere than the kiddie version that you like to argue." - herfacechair

Either you love to use strawman arguments/questions in the face of defeat, or you honest to God can't understand basic English. If it's the later, please hire an interpreter who'd be able to break this down for you in retard terms. Originally Posted by herfacechair

What you are, sir, is an absolute f'n idiot and another example that an accumulation of knowledge is just f'n pointless if the possessor of such knowledge does not possess realism and common sense to apply that knowledge in a common practical sense way - aka just a bookworm with no common sense. Talk about a strawman argument and failed logic: She got the story wrong - and your combined idiotic ramblings and collections of bullshit and useless information i.e. all of that bullshit about english common law and such, do not make you smart - they make you an idiot with a search bar who lacks the ability to discern what is, and what is not, releveant in an argument. Objection, your honor, - all of that bullshit is irrelevant. There is no higher level of understanding from a historical approach - there is just an attempt by a few people in the world to validate either a slip of tongue, a mis-speak, or republican bullshit wrapped up in a "pretty", palatable, face - better her than Karl Rove, huh.

The entire country, except this one professor, the other old idiot on this board, and your dumb ass, understands that Palin got the story wrong, but because some republican spin doctor went back and decided to "agree" with an idiot, you've jumped on the bandwagon as well. Oh, well. You are allowed to be an idiot. Paul Revere warned the British... What a f'n idiot. If she mispoke, then she should stop speaking - and before you bring up the POTUS(more of your partisan, irrelevant bullshit), I'm not referring to him - I'm referring to you and I'm referring to Sarah Palin and the rest of the Junior Historical Society. The best path would have been to say, "hey, i mispoke. My Bad". but she's an idiot who can't admit that she's wrong and she's supported by more idiots who are either arguing for the sake of arguing, or who are just as idiotic as she is. Sarah Palin is irrelevant, and not even on my political screen, but she got the story wrong - and so do you. You'd get laughed out of any educational blog on the planet - hell, even the people at FOX agree that she got it wrong.

What you are is a delusional fool, an idiot who by speaking, has silenced the speculators concerning your idiocy - the real world awaits. Warned the f'n british - Get the fuck outta here.......

Alarms are meant to warn the offended, not the offender. Now reply with a buch of other bullshit, useless information about some obscure historical analysis that somehow makes Palin right

I understand english perfectly and if there's an interpreter needed, it's to wade through all of that useless bullshit posted on this board in the blue print. Warned the British - f'n sad ass fools....