And to top it off, Mr. History Major, to know so much about history, you a really f'n chronologically clueless - more indication of your inability to logically process info.
The Boston Tea Party occurred in 1773 and was a direct action, by that colonists, against the British Crown, and placed the colonists in direct rebellion to GB; the Tea party was one of a group of rebellious actions taken by the colonists. Paul Revere's ride occurred in 1775, and by then the colonists had formed a network and had begun preparing for rebellion - otherwise, what was the use of the network - I know: to warn the BRITISH. At the time of Revere's ride people were openly advocating armed rebellion, pamphlets, speeches, and such, and were to be arrested by the crown for inciting violence and treasonous actions. Paul Revere was a member of the Sons of Liberty, a group of rebellious colonists formed to protect the rights of the colonists from the British government after 1766. The Sons of Liberty were responsible for the Boston Tea party in 1773, which led to the Intolerable Acts, an intense crackdown by the British government), and a counter-mobilization by the Patriots that led directly to the American Revolution.
"On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates, Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local "Sons of Liberty" committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row "by sea" across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching "by land" out Boston Neck. Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston).
On the way to Lexington, Revere "alarmed" the country-side, stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. "Noise!" cried Revere, "You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!" After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol. Prescott escaped almost immediately, and Dawes soon after. Revere was held for some time and then released. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green(April 19, 1775).
Warned the British... what a f'n idiot. But hey, I guess that you're so intellectually brilliant and you have such a keen insight, that what you and palin thinks, trumps 200 years of History. Dumb-ass............
- thorough9
- 06-16-2011, 02:30 PM
- CuteOldGuy
- 06-16-2011, 05:12 PM
LOL! I'm thinking about changing my screen name to "the Other Old Idiot." But OOI doesn't have quite the ring of COG. Still, it sounds cool.
- herfacechair
- 06-16-2011, 05:49 PM
thorough9, your arguments, in this thread, are thoroughly baseless, illogical, and devoid of common sense. If anything, they're thoroughly emotional and thoroughly wrong.
In other words, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Watch as I thoroughly demonstrate that with my thorough rebuttal to your latest, terrible twos tantrum, post… what you're mistaking as a 'rebuttal' with 'substance.'
thorough9: 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.
Hey look, "brain," Are you always this stupid, or are you putting forth an extra effort to be stupid?
A person that possesses realism, and common sense, along with the ability to apply knowledge in a common practical sense way, wouldn't be arguing that Paul Revere was warning the colonials that the "British" were coming. So far, the only thing you've done on this thread was repeat the watered down, simplified, version of American history that they teach in school.
The only thing that you've done is parrot what you've been force fed over the years. To someone with critical thinking abilities, your posts come across as this:
"AAAAARK POLLY WANT A CRACKER? AAAAARK! AAAAAAARK! POLLY WANT A CRACKER? AAAAAAARK….."
The following quote is PRECISELY what you do when you apply knowledge in the "common practical sense" way:
"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." - herfacechair
"The facts show that Paul Revere said that the Regulars were coming. This makes sense, considered the fact that the idea of us being "Americans" didn't really kick in until long after the Revolutionary War." - herfacechair
I doubt that they teach that in school, given the number of DITHLL looks I get from people that insist on holding common assumptions with a death grip. Your explanations represent the common misconceptions that people have on events in our past. That's PRECISELY what a bookworm, with no common sense, would do.
thorough9: Talk about a strawman argument
Here's an example of a strawman argument:
Person A argues point X
Person B advances point Y, which is a distorted version of point X
Person B argues that point Y is wrong; therefore, point X (not actually addressed) is "wrong."
That's the point that I showed you in my last reply.
thorough9: and failed logic:
Don't confuse your misconceptions, opinions and partisan biases as "logic." It's not. You've failed to demonstrate logic in your posts. You need to know what logic is, be able to recognize it when it's staring you right in the face, before you could judge whether a person's logic passes or fails.
You've advanced an emotion based argument, fueled by your hatred of certain people.
thorough9: She got the story wrong
Take it away thorough9:
"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" - thorough9
Now, where does good old common sense apply? What I said earlier on this thread:
"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." - herfacechair
"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." - herfacechair
Do you see it?
The fact that people could say one thing but mean another?
The fact that you'd insist on taking her literally when she tried to communicate, what turned out to be accurate, proves that you lack common sense, or the ability to apply knowledge in a practical way.
thorough9:- and your combined idiotic ramblings and collections of bullshit and useless information i.e. all of that bullshit about english common law and such,
I've noticed that nowhere, on this thread, have you tried to prove my arguments "wrong." You've failed to argue against the facts that I've advanced on this thread. You have to actually "prove" me "wrong" before you could label my posts as "idiotic ramblings," or my sources as "collections of bullshit and useless information.
The things that you dismiss are the very things that you need to argue if you have the ability to apply knowledge in the "common practical sense." Why is that? It's because English Common Law was a philosophy that influenced the mindset of the English/British Empire.
Common sense… our founding fathers would've done things driven by English Common Law.
thorough9:- do not make you smart -
WHERE, in this thread, do I claim that the information that I'm advancing here makes me smart?
thorough9: 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.
Your opinions, biases, etc., don't determine what's relevant, and what's not, to an argument. Everything that I've argued on this thread is relative to the argument. The fact remains, Sarah Palin got it right about what Paul Revere was doing that night. She simply didn't get her point across properly.
You need to quit making strawman statements/arguments before you accuse others of not being able to figure out what's related, and what's not related, to an argument.
You come across as a person, losing a fight, demanding that the winning person get extra restraints slapped onto him.
thorough9: Objection, your honor, - all of that bullshit is irrelevant.
Objection overruled, herfacechair et al have provided relevant information against your drivel. You may answer herfacechair's question above.
thorough9: There is no higher level of understanding from a historical approach
I know who you are! You're that spokesman that argued that there were no American service members in Baghdad… after the world saw pictures of them there!
Baghdad Bob? Is that you?
Hate to break this to you, "brain," but applying English Common Law to a topic where the opposition only knows the watered down version of what happen, does represent a higher understanding of history.
thorough9: - 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.
That's not an attempt, but a successful effort by those, with access to the facts, to come forward and do for Sarah Palin what the criminally biased media are all too happy to do for the liberals. Again, you have to prove our argument wrong before you could dismiss it as "bullshit." Otherwise, your argument is nothing but that… rubbish… pure, utter rubbish!
thorough9: 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,
You don't speak for the entire country.
Those of us, with an above average knowledge of American History, understood what she was trying to get across. Yes, we're a minority in this country, but there's enough of us to where the use of "entire country," to describe the opposition, becomes irresponsible.
thorough9: 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.
Only an idiot would talk as if he knew what my cognitive processes are. I know for a fact that you don't know what they are; otherwise, you wouldn't have said this.
I've argued my position here, and elsewhere, on this topic, simply because I know things about our history that the average American doesn't. I saw someone getting lacerated, for trying to communicate something that actually came closer to reality than what most people know… so I jumped in to point out that she's actually closer to the truth than those that are criticizing her.
thorough9: Paul Revere warned the British... What a f'n idiot.
That was one of the secondary purposes of his activating the alarm system. Remember, neither side was expecting that night to be the first night of the American Revolution. The hope was that when the Regulars heard the drums, bells and gunfire, that the Regulars would decide on handling this a different way. It also let the Regulars know that they weren't going to take the colonials weapons away.
Also, when enough facts indicate that Paul Revere said Regulars, and not British, only an idiot would continue on insisting that he said, "British."
thorough9: If she mispoke, then she should stop speaking
Why should she stop speaking if she misspoke when you're here drumming up tomes of your drivel? Again, are we to assume that you've never misspoke? If you HAVE misspoke in the past, and you're here spewing your drivel, then there's a word in the dictionary, that starts with "H" and ends with "T" that describes you.
thorough9: - and before you bring up the POTUS(more of your partisan, irrelevant bullshit), I'm not referring to him
So says the guy that said this:
"…or republican bullshit wrapped up in a 'pretty', palatable, face - better her than Karl Rove, huh." - thorough9
Everything that I've argued is relevant to the topic. I brought DEM misspoken words to get a point across. Common sense would've allowed a person to see where I was coming from. Unfortunately, you tend to take the "bookworm without common sense" approach to Sarah's statement.
thorough9: - I'm referring to you and I'm referring to Sarah Palin and the rest of the Junior Historical Society.
I love the way that you consistently prove Ann Coulter right about liberal debate tactics. Throw playground kiddie mentality at someone that they have a hard time debating against. It's a good thing that we're separated by distance, don't know what kind of food you'd throw at me.
thorough9: The best path would have been to say, "hey, i mispoke. My Bad".
It doesn't matter what she would've done, you guys would still froth at the mouth, with your hatred of conservatives, and continued to vilify her.
thorough9: 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.
Why admit to something that isn't the case? That'd be like expecting me to admit that I "don't know" how to log onto ECCIE, right after I logged onto it with no problems. Don't mistake people, more knowledgeable about American History than you, as "idiots."
In order for you to call us "idiots," you have to prove us "wrong." You've miserably failed to do. That's understandable, considering that your lack of knowledge, and understanding, of what really happened, painfully shows with your posts.
In your case, you're actually wrong. But, I don't see you stumbling over yourself to admit that you're wrong in this argument.
thorough9: Sarah Palin is irrelevant, and not even on my political screen,
If she's irrelevant, and not on your political screen, you'd abandon this thread. But, the mere fact that you're here arguing proves that she's relevant to you, and is smack dab on your political screen.
thorough9: but she got the story wrong - and so do you.
Again, you have to prove it wrong before you claim that it's wrong. You've miserably failed to do that in this thread. I'm basing my arguments on facts.
thorough9: You'd get laughed out of any educational blog on the planet
The education blogs that I checked out have pointed to similar sources that we've presented here. If you're talking about the mass production of liberal student mills, aka most our universities, I've already been that route.
History students couldn't hold a candle to me in debate, with a PhD in History holder giving up the debate, and listening to what I was saying, because I presented facts liberal professors didn't emphasize in the classroom.
thorough9: - hell, even the people at FOX agree that she got it wrong.
I don't know which "FOX" you're watching, but the FNC that I've watched pointed out similar things that I've pointed out here. They didn't provide an advanced argument, like what I'm putting out here, but they're not going around saying that she's "wrong."
thorough9: What you are is a delusional fool,
The facts indicate that Paul Revere said the Regulars are coming, not the British. If you're arguing that he claimed that the British are coming, then you're the delusional fool.
Commonsense dictates that a person that argues based on the facts isn't delusional, but one that argues against the facts is. Or, they're extremely arrogant.
thorough9: an idiot who by speaking,
Do continue to prove Ann Coulter right about liberal debate techniques… throw insults when one can't advance the facts.
thorough9: has silenced the speculators concerning your idiocy - the real world awaits.
You don't speak for the speculators, and you definitely don't speak for the real world. Heck, you don't type like someone that has had access to the real world.
thorough9: Warned the f'n british - Get the fuck outta here.......
When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons.
thorough9: Alarms are meant to warn the offended, not the offender.
In the case we're arguing, you have to think from our founding fathers' mindset, not yours. Again, a secondary purpose for the ringing of the bells was to warn the Regulars that we weren't going to give up our weapons.
Remember, both sides were trying to avert war, until the last minute. Our founding fathers didn't think with your mindset. Thank God.
thorough9: Now reply
My replying to you is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes.
thorough9: with a buch of other bullshit, useless information about some
Don't mistake the facts as "bullshit, useless information," because they go counter to what you believe.
thorough9: obscure historical analysis that somehow makes Palin right
Thanks, you've proven your previous statement about me wrong:
"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." - thorough9
If I were all that you described me in the beginning of your cesspool (your post), then I wouldn't be able to provide an analysis of what we're debating about.
thorough9: I understand english perfectly
If you understood English perfectly, you wouldn't have needed to ask me the question you asked me on this thread.
thorough9: 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. REPEAT POINT
That's a statement that someone would say when they come across something that goes over their head. Again, don't dismiss the facts as "useless bullshit." You think that your argument makes complete "logical" sense, but it doesn’t. It's based on biased, hatred based emotion that's blinding you to the facts.
If only you'd remove your horse blinders, you'd see that those on my side of the argument on this thread make perfect sense.
thorough9: Warned the British - f'n sad ass fools.... REPEAT POINT
When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons.
In other words, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Watch as I thoroughly demonstrate that with my thorough rebuttal to your latest, terrible twos tantrum, post… what you're mistaking as a 'rebuttal' with 'substance.'
thorough9: 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.
Hey look, "brain," Are you always this stupid, or are you putting forth an extra effort to be stupid?
A person that possesses realism, and common sense, along with the ability to apply knowledge in a common practical sense way, wouldn't be arguing that Paul Revere was warning the colonials that the "British" were coming. So far, the only thing you've done on this thread was repeat the watered down, simplified, version of American history that they teach in school.
The only thing that you've done is parrot what you've been force fed over the years. To someone with critical thinking abilities, your posts come across as this:
"AAAAARK POLLY WANT A CRACKER? AAAAARK! AAAAAAARK! POLLY WANT A CRACKER? AAAAAAARK….."
The following quote is PRECISELY what you do when you apply knowledge in the "common practical sense" way:
"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." - herfacechair
"The facts show that Paul Revere said that the Regulars were coming. This makes sense, considered the fact that the idea of us being "Americans" didn't really kick in until long after the Revolutionary War." - herfacechair
I doubt that they teach that in school, given the number of DITHLL looks I get from people that insist on holding common assumptions with a death grip. Your explanations represent the common misconceptions that people have on events in our past. That's PRECISELY what a bookworm, with no common sense, would do.
thorough9: Talk about a strawman argument
Here's an example of a strawman argument:
Person A argues point X
Person B advances point Y, which is a distorted version of point X
Person B argues that point Y is wrong; therefore, point X (not actually addressed) is "wrong."
That's the point that I showed you in my last reply.
thorough9: and failed logic:
Don't confuse your misconceptions, opinions and partisan biases as "logic." It's not. You've failed to demonstrate logic in your posts. You need to know what logic is, be able to recognize it when it's staring you right in the face, before you could judge whether a person's logic passes or fails.
You've advanced an emotion based argument, fueled by your hatred of certain people.
thorough9: She got the story wrong
Take it away thorough9:
"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" - thorough9
Now, where does good old common sense apply? What I said earlier on this thread:
"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." - herfacechair
"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." - herfacechair
Do you see it?
The fact that people could say one thing but mean another?
The fact that you'd insist on taking her literally when she tried to communicate, what turned out to be accurate, proves that you lack common sense, or the ability to apply knowledge in a practical way.
thorough9:- and your combined idiotic ramblings and collections of bullshit and useless information i.e. all of that bullshit about english common law and such,
I've noticed that nowhere, on this thread, have you tried to prove my arguments "wrong." You've failed to argue against the facts that I've advanced on this thread. You have to actually "prove" me "wrong" before you could label my posts as "idiotic ramblings," or my sources as "collections of bullshit and useless information.
The things that you dismiss are the very things that you need to argue if you have the ability to apply knowledge in the "common practical sense." Why is that? It's because English Common Law was a philosophy that influenced the mindset of the English/British Empire.
Common sense… our founding fathers would've done things driven by English Common Law.
thorough9:- do not make you smart -
WHERE, in this thread, do I claim that the information that I'm advancing here makes me smart?
thorough9: 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.
Your opinions, biases, etc., don't determine what's relevant, and what's not, to an argument. Everything that I've argued on this thread is relative to the argument. The fact remains, Sarah Palin got it right about what Paul Revere was doing that night. She simply didn't get her point across properly.
You need to quit making strawman statements/arguments before you accuse others of not being able to figure out what's related, and what's not related, to an argument.
You come across as a person, losing a fight, demanding that the winning person get extra restraints slapped onto him.
thorough9: Objection, your honor, - all of that bullshit is irrelevant.
Objection overruled, herfacechair et al have provided relevant information against your drivel. You may answer herfacechair's question above.
thorough9: There is no higher level of understanding from a historical approach
I know who you are! You're that spokesman that argued that there were no American service members in Baghdad… after the world saw pictures of them there!
Baghdad Bob? Is that you?
Hate to break this to you, "brain," but applying English Common Law to a topic where the opposition only knows the watered down version of what happen, does represent a higher understanding of history.
thorough9: - 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.
That's not an attempt, but a successful effort by those, with access to the facts, to come forward and do for Sarah Palin what the criminally biased media are all too happy to do for the liberals. Again, you have to prove our argument wrong before you could dismiss it as "bullshit." Otherwise, your argument is nothing but that… rubbish… pure, utter rubbish!
thorough9: 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,
You don't speak for the entire country.
Those of us, with an above average knowledge of American History, understood what she was trying to get across. Yes, we're a minority in this country, but there's enough of us to where the use of "entire country," to describe the opposition, becomes irresponsible.
thorough9: 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.
Only an idiot would talk as if he knew what my cognitive processes are. I know for a fact that you don't know what they are; otherwise, you wouldn't have said this.
I've argued my position here, and elsewhere, on this topic, simply because I know things about our history that the average American doesn't. I saw someone getting lacerated, for trying to communicate something that actually came closer to reality than what most people know… so I jumped in to point out that she's actually closer to the truth than those that are criticizing her.
thorough9: Paul Revere warned the British... What a f'n idiot.
That was one of the secondary purposes of his activating the alarm system. Remember, neither side was expecting that night to be the first night of the American Revolution. The hope was that when the Regulars heard the drums, bells and gunfire, that the Regulars would decide on handling this a different way. It also let the Regulars know that they weren't going to take the colonials weapons away.
Also, when enough facts indicate that Paul Revere said Regulars, and not British, only an idiot would continue on insisting that he said, "British."
thorough9: If she mispoke, then she should stop speaking
Why should she stop speaking if she misspoke when you're here drumming up tomes of your drivel? Again, are we to assume that you've never misspoke? If you HAVE misspoke in the past, and you're here spewing your drivel, then there's a word in the dictionary, that starts with "H" and ends with "T" that describes you.
thorough9: - and before you bring up the POTUS(more of your partisan, irrelevant bullshit), I'm not referring to him
So says the guy that said this:
"…or republican bullshit wrapped up in a 'pretty', palatable, face - better her than Karl Rove, huh." - thorough9
Everything that I've argued is relevant to the topic. I brought DEM misspoken words to get a point across. Common sense would've allowed a person to see where I was coming from. Unfortunately, you tend to take the "bookworm without common sense" approach to Sarah's statement.
thorough9: - I'm referring to you and I'm referring to Sarah Palin and the rest of the Junior Historical Society.
I love the way that you consistently prove Ann Coulter right about liberal debate tactics. Throw playground kiddie mentality at someone that they have a hard time debating against. It's a good thing that we're separated by distance, don't know what kind of food you'd throw at me.
thorough9: The best path would have been to say, "hey, i mispoke. My Bad".
It doesn't matter what she would've done, you guys would still froth at the mouth, with your hatred of conservatives, and continued to vilify her.
thorough9: 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.
Why admit to something that isn't the case? That'd be like expecting me to admit that I "don't know" how to log onto ECCIE, right after I logged onto it with no problems. Don't mistake people, more knowledgeable about American History than you, as "idiots."
In order for you to call us "idiots," you have to prove us "wrong." You've miserably failed to do. That's understandable, considering that your lack of knowledge, and understanding, of what really happened, painfully shows with your posts.
In your case, you're actually wrong. But, I don't see you stumbling over yourself to admit that you're wrong in this argument.
thorough9: Sarah Palin is irrelevant, and not even on my political screen,
If she's irrelevant, and not on your political screen, you'd abandon this thread. But, the mere fact that you're here arguing proves that she's relevant to you, and is smack dab on your political screen.
thorough9: but she got the story wrong - and so do you.
Again, you have to prove it wrong before you claim that it's wrong. You've miserably failed to do that in this thread. I'm basing my arguments on facts.
thorough9: You'd get laughed out of any educational blog on the planet
The education blogs that I checked out have pointed to similar sources that we've presented here. If you're talking about the mass production of liberal student mills, aka most our universities, I've already been that route.
History students couldn't hold a candle to me in debate, with a PhD in History holder giving up the debate, and listening to what I was saying, because I presented facts liberal professors didn't emphasize in the classroom.
thorough9: - hell, even the people at FOX agree that she got it wrong.
I don't know which "FOX" you're watching, but the FNC that I've watched pointed out similar things that I've pointed out here. They didn't provide an advanced argument, like what I'm putting out here, but they're not going around saying that she's "wrong."
thorough9: What you are is a delusional fool,
The facts indicate that Paul Revere said the Regulars are coming, not the British. If you're arguing that he claimed that the British are coming, then you're the delusional fool.
Commonsense dictates that a person that argues based on the facts isn't delusional, but one that argues against the facts is. Or, they're extremely arrogant.
thorough9: an idiot who by speaking,
Do continue to prove Ann Coulter right about liberal debate techniques… throw insults when one can't advance the facts.
thorough9: has silenced the speculators concerning your idiocy - the real world awaits.
You don't speak for the speculators, and you definitely don't speak for the real world. Heck, you don't type like someone that has had access to the real world.
thorough9: Warned the f'n british - Get the fuck outta here.......
When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons.
thorough9: Alarms are meant to warn the offended, not the offender.
In the case we're arguing, you have to think from our founding fathers' mindset, not yours. Again, a secondary purpose for the ringing of the bells was to warn the Regulars that we weren't going to give up our weapons.
Remember, both sides were trying to avert war, until the last minute. Our founding fathers didn't think with your mindset. Thank God.
thorough9: Now reply
My replying to you is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes.
thorough9: with a buch of other bullshit, useless information about some
Don't mistake the facts as "bullshit, useless information," because they go counter to what you believe.
thorough9: obscure historical analysis that somehow makes Palin right
Thanks, you've proven your previous statement about me wrong:
"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." - thorough9
If I were all that you described me in the beginning of your cesspool (your post), then I wouldn't be able to provide an analysis of what we're debating about.
thorough9: I understand english perfectly
If you understood English perfectly, you wouldn't have needed to ask me the question you asked me on this thread.
thorough9: 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. REPEAT POINT
That's a statement that someone would say when they come across something that goes over their head. Again, don't dismiss the facts as "useless bullshit." You think that your argument makes complete "logical" sense, but it doesn’t. It's based on biased, hatred based emotion that's blinding you to the facts.
If only you'd remove your horse blinders, you'd see that those on my side of the argument on this thread make perfect sense.
thorough9: Warned the British - f'n sad ass fools.... REPEAT POINT
When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons.
- herfacechair
- 06-16-2011, 05:55 PM
You know you've crushed the opposition when they resort to quoting text from other websites, without crediting the appropriate text to the appropriate sources. Given that part of what's said is word for word from Wikipedia, I could see why someone wouldn't want to show his sources.
thorough9: And to top it off, Mr. History Major, to know so much about history, you a really f'n chronologically clueless - more indication of your inability to logically process info.
None of the text that you quoted contradicted my English Common Law explanation. There are groups of people in the United States today, that advocate rebellion against the US government. But guess what? We're not in a state of rebellion against the United States Government. This is another example of you using strawman arguments.
Now watch me go through your post and show you how much you don't know what you're talking about… as usual.
thorough9: The Boston Tea Party occurred in 1773 and was a direct action, by that colonists, against the British Crown, and placed the colonists in direct rebellion to GB; the Tea party was one of a group of rebellious actions taken by the colonists.
It was an act of protests of a series of actions of the British Parliament that violated the contract that the colonial's forefathers had with the King's forefathers. Let's list some of these UK violations.
The Sugar Act, in April 5, 1764. The Quartering Act of 1765, The Declaratory Act, 1766, The Townshend Revenue Act, and the Tea Act of 1773.
The British started to repeal some of these acts as the political conflict across the Atlantic picked up steam.
The Boston Tea Party was an act against the British East India Company, which faced the threat of going under. The Tea Act of 1773 was a version of a "bailout" attempt. The Colonists saw right through that…
But, the bottom line, is that this violated the agreement that the colonial's forefathers had with the King's forefathers.
Te wit… the Colonials ran affairs in and around the colonies.
thorough9: Paul Revere's ride occurred in 1775, and by then the colonists had formed a network and had begun preparing for rebellion - otherwise, what was the use of the network - I know: to warn the BRITISH.
First, that network had always been there. Remember, the colonials had just came out of the French and Indian Wars, where they had served as militia for the British Regulars. This wasn't the first war, between Great Britain and a foreign power, where the colonials provided militia to serve under the British Regulars.
Let's not forget the Indian raids that the colonials had to deal with on more than one occasion.
This alarm system was in place for as long as the colonies were around… this alarm system is based on the ones that the Europeans had centuries before any colony was established in the Americas.
Second, activating the alarm system had a secondary aim of letting the British know that they weren't going to take the colonials' weapons.
Third, even with both sides rattling their sabers (what you describe above) both sides continued to try to prevent this from coming to blows… they were doing this until the day shots were fired.
In fact, right after the shot heard around the world, the King received correspondence from the colonies, reminding him of the agreement their mutual ancestors had, asking the King to intercede on their behalf. Since shots were already fired, that move didn't result in what the correspondence tried to resolve.
thorough9: At the time of Revere's ride people were openly advocating armed rebellion, pamphlets, speeches, and such, and were to be arrested by the crown for inciting violence and treasonous actions.
Again, there are groups in the United States that have been advocating similar acts against the US government. Timothy McVeigh anybody? Law enforcement are after these people. The fact that these groups exist doesn't mean that the rest of the American people are in an act of rebellion against the US government.
You don't have an argument.
thorough9: Paul Revere was a member of the Sons of Liberty, a group of rebellious colonists formed to protect the rights of the colonists from the British government after 1766. The Sons of Liberty were responsible for the Boston Tea party in 1773, which led to the Intolerable Acts, an intense crackdown by the British government), and a counter-mobilization by the Patriots that led directly to the American Revolution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty)
Do you see the contradiction in this comment? If they were formed in 1776, how are they responsible for something that happened 3 years before they were formed? The American Revolution began in 1775. Any declaration claiming that a state was in rebellion before that time was just a knee jerk reaction to try to increase control of a state.
But, notice that when you read further in your source, you'd notice that the Sons of Liberty still were loyal to the Crown.
In other words, the Sons of Liberty were like a nonprofit organization of today. It's like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, etc., who intend to represent veteran rights in Congress. After war broke out, they joined on the side of the colonials.
Second, that quote captures literature that one can find on the internet. This is in the same post where you dismiss the analysis that I added, based on my research and reading of American History… of materials that go into more in-depth than what you plagiarized above.
Take it away thorough9:
"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." - thorough9
That's precisely what you've done in the post that I'm rebutting. Simply plagiarized someone, ran with that information, while refusing to factor in the variables at play when all of that was taking place. When someone does point those variables out, you accuse them of what you've just quoted.
There's a word in the dictionary that describes your actions, it starts with an "H" and ends with a "T."
thorough9: Warned the British... REPEAT POINT
When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons.
thorough9: what a f'n idiot.
So says the guy that posts as if he's possessed by a retarded ghost.
thorough9: But hey, I guess that you're so intellectually brilliant and you have such a keen insight, that what you and palin thinks, trumps 200 years of History.
Don't mistake your advancing of a strawman argument as 200 years of history. You've failed to prove my argument on this thread wrong. The only thing you've done was quoted history related passages that don't contradict my English Common Law based arguments. It's like what I said earlier on this thread… what you're running with is a watered down version of what actually happened… two of the information sources that you've used… that I've sourced for you… are an example of what I'm talking about.
They talk about the surface of what's going on, not the undertows and undercurrents of what happened… the later is what I've argued.
thorough9: Dumb-ass............
Tell that one brain celled operation of yours to start doing its job and to quit trying to take you over. You'll stop posting as if you're possessed by a retarded ghost if you do.
thorough9: And to top it off, Mr. History Major, to know so much about history, you a really f'n chronologically clueless - more indication of your inability to logically process info.
None of the text that you quoted contradicted my English Common Law explanation. There are groups of people in the United States today, that advocate rebellion against the US government. But guess what? We're not in a state of rebellion against the United States Government. This is another example of you using strawman arguments.
Now watch me go through your post and show you how much you don't know what you're talking about… as usual.
thorough9: The Boston Tea Party occurred in 1773 and was a direct action, by that colonists, against the British Crown, and placed the colonists in direct rebellion to GB; the Tea party was one of a group of rebellious actions taken by the colonists.
It was an act of protests of a series of actions of the British Parliament that violated the contract that the colonial's forefathers had with the King's forefathers. Let's list some of these UK violations.
The Sugar Act, in April 5, 1764. The Quartering Act of 1765, The Declaratory Act, 1766, The Townshend Revenue Act, and the Tea Act of 1773.
The British started to repeal some of these acts as the political conflict across the Atlantic picked up steam.
The Boston Tea Party was an act against the British East India Company, which faced the threat of going under. The Tea Act of 1773 was a version of a "bailout" attempt. The Colonists saw right through that…
But, the bottom line, is that this violated the agreement that the colonial's forefathers had with the King's forefathers.
Te wit… the Colonials ran affairs in and around the colonies.
thorough9: Paul Revere's ride occurred in 1775, and by then the colonists had formed a network and had begun preparing for rebellion - otherwise, what was the use of the network - I know: to warn the BRITISH.
First, that network had always been there. Remember, the colonials had just came out of the French and Indian Wars, where they had served as militia for the British Regulars. This wasn't the first war, between Great Britain and a foreign power, where the colonials provided militia to serve under the British Regulars.
Let's not forget the Indian raids that the colonials had to deal with on more than one occasion.
This alarm system was in place for as long as the colonies were around… this alarm system is based on the ones that the Europeans had centuries before any colony was established in the Americas.
Second, activating the alarm system had a secondary aim of letting the British know that they weren't going to take the colonials' weapons.
Third, even with both sides rattling their sabers (what you describe above) both sides continued to try to prevent this from coming to blows… they were doing this until the day shots were fired.
In fact, right after the shot heard around the world, the King received correspondence from the colonies, reminding him of the agreement their mutual ancestors had, asking the King to intercede on their behalf. Since shots were already fired, that move didn't result in what the correspondence tried to resolve.
thorough9: At the time of Revere's ride people were openly advocating armed rebellion, pamphlets, speeches, and such, and were to be arrested by the crown for inciting violence and treasonous actions.
Again, there are groups in the United States that have been advocating similar acts against the US government. Timothy McVeigh anybody? Law enforcement are after these people. The fact that these groups exist doesn't mean that the rest of the American people are in an act of rebellion against the US government.
You don't have an argument.
thorough9: Paul Revere was a member of the Sons of Liberty, a group of rebellious colonists formed to protect the rights of the colonists from the British government after 1766. The Sons of Liberty were responsible for the Boston Tea party in 1773, which led to the Intolerable Acts, an intense crackdown by the British government), and a counter-mobilization by the Patriots that led directly to the American Revolution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty)
Do you see the contradiction in this comment? If they were formed in 1776, how are they responsible for something that happened 3 years before they were formed? The American Revolution began in 1775. Any declaration claiming that a state was in rebellion before that time was just a knee jerk reaction to try to increase control of a state.
But, notice that when you read further in your source, you'd notice that the Sons of Liberty still were loyal to the Crown.
In other words, the Sons of Liberty were like a nonprofit organization of today. It's like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, etc., who intend to represent veteran rights in Congress. After war broke out, they joined on the side of the colonials.
Plagiarized by thorough9 from this site: (http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/real.html)First, can you see the difference between the author's statement, and Paul Revere's? I've bolded Paul Revere's statement for you. The mention of British in the article was the author's statement… something that's based on the modern mindset, not that of our founding fathers'. You'd find that in the bolded red statement in the quote that you plagiarized.
"On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates, Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local "Sons of Liberty" committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row "by sea" across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching "by land" out Boston Neck. Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston).
On the way to Lexington, Revere "alarmed" the country-side, stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. "Noise!" cried Revere, "You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!" After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol. Prescott escaped almost immediately, and Dawes soon after. Revere was held for some time and then released. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green(April 19, 1775).
Second, that quote captures literature that one can find on the internet. This is in the same post where you dismiss the analysis that I added, based on my research and reading of American History… of materials that go into more in-depth than what you plagiarized above.
Take it away thorough9:
"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." - thorough9
That's precisely what you've done in the post that I'm rebutting. Simply plagiarized someone, ran with that information, while refusing to factor in the variables at play when all of that was taking place. When someone does point those variables out, you accuse them of what you've just quoted.
There's a word in the dictionary that describes your actions, it starts with an "H" and ends with a "T."
thorough9: Warned the British... REPEAT POINT
When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons.
thorough9: what a f'n idiot.
So says the guy that posts as if he's possessed by a retarded ghost.
thorough9: But hey, I guess that you're so intellectually brilliant and you have such a keen insight, that what you and palin thinks, trumps 200 years of History.
Don't mistake your advancing of a strawman argument as 200 years of history. You've failed to prove my argument on this thread wrong. The only thing you've done was quoted history related passages that don't contradict my English Common Law based arguments. It's like what I said earlier on this thread… what you're running with is a watered down version of what actually happened… two of the information sources that you've used… that I've sourced for you… are an example of what I'm talking about.
They talk about the surface of what's going on, not the undertows and undercurrents of what happened… the later is what I've argued.
thorough9: Dumb-ass............
Tell that one brain celled operation of yours to start doing its job and to quit trying to take you over. You'll stop posting as if you're possessed by a retarded ghost if you do.
- herfacechair
- 06-16-2011, 05:59 PM
LOL! I'm thinking about changing my screen name to "the Other Old Idiot." But OOI doesn't have quite the ring of COG. Still, it sounds cool. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyHe's following a predictable pattern, one that I've seen with others that I've debated with over the past few years.
The moment they get into a frame of mind where they could consistently flame me, they give me opportunities to use their own words against them. It's like beating a man up with his own prosthetic limb.
- dirty dog
- 06-16-2011, 06:15 PM
OMG who gives a shit, Palin's a freakin idiot, never had a chance.
- thorough9
- 06-17-2011, 01:50 AM
Palin is indeed an idiot, it just rubs me 
when assholes try and distort the truth to make it fit their agenda.
And Toilet-Face, Mr. Shit-Licker, all of the pages upon pages of bullshit that you've posted is purely pointless and you've yet to prove anything other than the fact that you cannot logically process truth and that your overblown ego would have you to believe that somehow, you know something, or can process facts, in some way that is superior to and above others.
You're an idiot, as is your mentor, Ann Coulter. Actually, she's not an idiot - she's either brilliant or she has a brilliant strategist. She understands what many other politicians, conservatives and liberals understand: how to motivate and manipulate idiotic sheep-ple like yourself; how to feed you their opinions, and play to your self-grandiose ideas or mental superiority and in a case of the emperor's new clothes, have your idiotic ass believe that somehow, someway, you have an intellectual one-up on everybody else in the world - you're one of the few that actually get it.
Ann Coulter is rich - she makes a living by catering to the oxymoronically educated, but small-minded and selfish dumb-asses of the world, like yourself. You have a case of the stupids that all of the degrees in the world couldn't cure.......
And to add to your stupidity and closed-mindedness, you assume that i must be a Liberal b/c I disagree with your POV. I disagree with open advocation of all stupidity, of which you apparently have an inexhaustible supply. You're just another idiot running around claiming to see something that's not really there b/c you think that seeing what's not there is an indication of your superior intellect. I.D.I.O.T.
You're dumb - no other way to say that. You're either dumb as hell or an easily manipulated fool. At either rate, arguing with a damned fool, is pointless. So, in your delusional stupidity, go ahead and proclaim your victory - your absolute, pointless victory.
Warned the F'n british - what a fucking joke...
BTW, the Sons of Liberty had been around since 1766, idiot, (you must have mis-read, then mis-thought, followed by a mis-type) not 1776 and Sons of Liberty - if they were so patriotic, just who were they seeking liberty from. That's as logical as your "there are dissenters today who are not in open rebellion" argument. There are no dissenters today attacking merchant vessels and dumping their cargo into the ocean - that's open rebellion, Idiot. And think of something new. Your blue-font, repititious talking points are tiresome and just plain fucking boring.....
Warn the British Regulars that they weren't gonna take away our arms.... absolutely fucking pathetic...
Your opinion is officially
shit.
when assholes try and distort the truth to make it fit their agenda. And Toilet-Face, Mr. Shit-Licker, all of the pages upon pages of bullshit that you've posted is purely pointless and you've yet to prove anything other than the fact that you cannot logically process truth and that your overblown ego would have you to believe that somehow, you know something, or can process facts, in some way that is superior to and above others.
You're an idiot, as is your mentor, Ann Coulter. Actually, she's not an idiot - she's either brilliant or she has a brilliant strategist. She understands what many other politicians, conservatives and liberals understand: how to motivate and manipulate idiotic sheep-ple like yourself; how to feed you their opinions, and play to your self-grandiose ideas or mental superiority and in a case of the emperor's new clothes, have your idiotic ass believe that somehow, someway, you have an intellectual one-up on everybody else in the world - you're one of the few that actually get it.
Ann Coulter is rich - she makes a living by catering to the oxymoronically educated, but small-minded and selfish dumb-asses of the world, like yourself. You have a case of the stupids that all of the degrees in the world couldn't cure.......
And to add to your stupidity and closed-mindedness, you assume that i must be a Liberal b/c I disagree with your POV. I disagree with open advocation of all stupidity, of which you apparently have an inexhaustible supply. You're just another idiot running around claiming to see something that's not really there b/c you think that seeing what's not there is an indication of your superior intellect. I.D.I.O.T.
You're dumb - no other way to say that. You're either dumb as hell or an easily manipulated fool. At either rate, arguing with a damned fool, is pointless. So, in your delusional stupidity, go ahead and proclaim your victory - your absolute, pointless victory.
Warned the F'n british - what a fucking joke...
BTW, the Sons of Liberty had been around since 1766,
idiot, (you must have mis-read, then mis-thought, followed by a mis-type) not 1776 and Sons of Liberty - if they were so patriotic, just who were they seeking liberty from. That's as logical as your "there are dissenters today who are not in open rebellion" argument. There are no dissenters today attacking merchant vessels and dumping their cargo into the ocean - that's open rebellion, Idiot. And think of something new. Your blue-font, repititious talking points are tiresome and just plain fucking boring.....Warn the British Regulars that they weren't gonna take away our arms.... absolutely fucking pathetic...
Your opinion is officially
shit.
- CuteOldGuy
- 06-17-2011, 06:27 AM
Well, Herfacechair, I don't know how you are going to respond to such a thoughtful and well reasoned response. I liked the research to support his point as well. Yup, I'm the "Other Old Idiot," that's for sure.
- Kshunter
- 06-17-2011, 07:24 AM
thorough's an angry little fuck, isn't he?
- thorough9
- 06-17-2011, 11:18 AM
Well, Herfacechair, I don't know how you are going to respond to such a thoughtful and well reasoned response. I liked the research to support his point as well. Yup, I'm the "Other Old Idiot," that's for sure. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyWhen you learn how to read, objectively, and realize that one-liners went out with radio-era comedy, then i might give a shit what you think. F'n dick-riding, moronic, bandwagon spectator..........
You're neither witty, nor humorous. You're an idiot who see what he wants, and in this case, it's bullshit.
Warned the British - STFU - A bunch of F'n idiots. But hey, you're just like Palin. You're committed to the mistake, now and you'd rather go down with the ship than admit a mistake.
- thorough9
- 06-17-2011, 11:50 AM
- CuteOldGuy
- 06-17-2011, 01:22 PM
Well, I feel better now. And I will even admit a mistake, like expecting you to back up your position. However, you are entitled to your opinion, supported or not. This has really been a fun discussion.
- herfacechair
- 06-17-2011, 04:17 PM
LOL! Now I've got him breaking out the smileys/icons!
thorough9, after I mentioned how Ann Coulter was right about you, you thoroughly proved her right again in your response to me. I laughed my ass off reading your reply, LOL, dude! You're so predictable! Ann Coulter described you to a "T."
But, I take great joy in hammering people like you. I know the real reason you're doing what you're doing… why else would I be able to get the responses from you that I expect to get from you? This is fun.
thorough9: Palin is indeed an idiot, it just rubs mewhen assholes try and distort the truth to make it fit their agenda. REPEAT POINT
So far, "genius," the only thing you've done was froth at the mouth at Palin's statement, you advanced no valid argument to prove her wrong. What she tried to communicate came closer to the truth than the watered down version of history that you people tend to have a death grip hold over.
thorough9: And Toilet-Face,
LOL, my face tends to feel more of a woman's ass than her toilet does.
thorough9: Mr. Shit-Licker,
I've performed DATO on a couple of women since posting on ECCIE. Their asses were pretty clean though.
However; if I wanted to find shit, all I have to do read your posts, which puts sewers to shame. Your posts give you away as a walking cesspool. As much shit as you spew on this message board, I hope that you don't kiss women with your lips.
I'd tell you to go ahead and take a dump, but I'm afraid that it'd result in your inability to generate posts here… something about running out of material to post.
thorough9: all of the pages upon pages of bullshit that you've posted is purely pointless
You remind me of a bunch of teenagers dismissing their parent's wisdom as "bullshit" and "pointless."
What you dismiss as "pointless" is a reasoned, fact and logic based argument. But, I could understand why you wouldn't see that. Your horse blinders appear to be strong enough to not only blind you to the facts, but to block your one brain celled operation from all attacks of reason.
thorough9: and you've yet to prove anything
The proof and logic are there. The stress shields that you've set up to protect your one brain celled operation from all attacks of reason and logic blind you to that fact. Your statements remind me of a kid, putting his hands to his ears, and saying, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you...."
thorough9: other than the fact that you cannot logically process truth
My refusal to drink the Koolaid that you're addicted to doesn't constitute my "inability" to logically process truth. When you claim that your drivel is the "truth," you insult the real truth.
Here's how a critical thinker would see that statement:
"If you don't agree with me, you're unable to logically process truth"
But, you see, the problem is that what you think is "truth" is just your misguided opinion.
thorough9: and that your overblown ego
Don't mistake my determination to argue, using facts, against someone arguing from misconception, as my having an "overblown ego." If anything, your continuing to be in this fight demonstrates the fact that you've got an overblown ego. The later is the main engine that's driving you in this thread.
thorough9: would have you to believe that somehow, you know something, or can process facts, in some way that is superior to and above others.
Because of your reaction to the history facts that I've presented on this thread, I could say that I know something, and possess facts, that are superior to and above what certain people here hold. I mean, that's pure common sense… if someone has access to the facts that others don't have access to, that former is obviously more knowledgeable on a certain topic than the later.
Common sense… try it… you might come across as being more reasonable here.
thorough9: You're an idiot
Hey kid, do your parents know that you're on their computer posting on an adult site? Go do your homework.
thorough9: as is your mentor, Ann Coulter.
I came to my own conclusions, and assessments, long before I came across Ann Coulter's works.
thorough9: Actually, she's not an idiot
See, you're so wrong that even you find something wrong with what you said before, then come up with an argument as to why your previous statement was wrong. But, since you had just changed your mind, what did you do with the diaper?
thorough9: - she's either brilliant or she has a brilliant strategist.
You may be as brilliant as a burnt out bulb, but at least you can recognize the brilliance of those better than you.
thorough9: She understands what many other politicians, conservatives and liberals understand: how to motivate and manipulate
I could tell that you've never read any of her books… but that doesn't seem to stop you from trying to impress us with your stupidity. If you've read her books, you'd notice that she points things out that many media outlets don't like to point out. She's not attempting to cause people to think a certain way.
She already knows that those liberals like you won't read her books. But many Americans, in the middle and to the right, will read her books. She's doing what any writer, wanting to make money, would do. Provide something that others would read.
thorough9: idiotic sheep-ple like yourself;
I see little difference between your drivel and the talking points of many liberal opinion leaders. You're acting like the black pot calling the black kettle black. My assessments are based on my experiences and research. Yours seem to come from misguided sources… sources that you've failed to double check on. Speak for yourself "brain."
thorough9: how to feed you their opinions,
If you read Ann Coulter's books, you'd notice that they're jam packed with verifiable sources. The part of her book, dedicated to her sources, form chapters of their own. What she does is equivalent to you writing your observations down, and making references to pictures that you've taken.
That's not what a reasonable person would call "feeding you their opinions."
thorough9: and play to your self-grandiose ideas or mental superiority
I never claimed to be mentally superior. But, that concept seems to be getting under your skin. I could tell that somewhere, in that empty coconut husk that you call your head, something is trying to tell you that you don't have a point in this argument. But, your ego seems hell bent on silencing that one brain celled operation of yours. Heaven forbid that it sends signals out that doesn't make your ego feel good.
thorough9: and in a case of the emperor's new clothes,
Actually, "Emperor's new clothes" is applicable to the arguments you've been using on this and other threads.
thorough9: have your idiotic ass believe that somehow, someway, you have an intellectual one-up on everybody else in the world - you're one of the few that actually get it.
This is more evidence that there's a side of you that sees that the opposition has a valid point in this argument, and that you don't. You can't make a valid argument, and you know that you're making a series of week arguments.
But, your ego, and your false sense of being "undefeated in debate," refuse to acknowledge what the side of you, that makes sense, is trying to communicate. Your statement is just another example of your stress shields being set up to protect your ego from reality.
thorough9: Ann Coulter is rich - she makes a living by catering to the
I've only read 4 books from her, either with a killer discount, or free. That was a few years ago. They confirmed what I had already suspected.
thorough9: oxymoronically educated, but small-minded and selfish dumb-asses of the world, like yourself.
You're on a mission here, aren't you? You're on a mission to spread ignorance, and that's a task you seem to be going above and beyond to accomplish.
thorough9: You have a case of the stupids that all of the degrees in the world couldn't cure.......And to add to your stupidity
Says the guy whose argument makes the strongest argument for re-incarnation… there's no way that he'd achieve this level of stupidity in one lifetime.
thorough9: and closed-mindedness,
You've argued from the surface… what's traditionally known about the Revolutionary War. I've introduced facts, the variables at play behind the scenes, and you've consistently insisted on rejecting them. If anybody is being closed-minded, it's you.
When someone like you argues that someone like me is "closed minded," you're really complaining that getting me to buy into your nonsense is impossible.
thorough9: you assume that i must be a Liberal b/c I disagree with your POV. I disagree with open advocation of all stupidity, of which you apparently have an inexhaustible supply. You're just another idiot running around claiming to see something that's not really there b/c you think that seeing what's not there is an indication of your superior intellect. I.D.I.O.T.
Need I remind you of what you said?
"- and before you bring up the POTUS(more of your partisan, irrelevant bullshit)," - thorough9
"…or republican bullshit wrapped up in a 'pretty', palatable, face - better her than Karl Rove, huh." - thorough9
POTUS = President of The United States, who happens to be Democrat. You said that in response to my pointing to him misspeaking… You've also demonstrated hostility to posters that have advanced a conservative, or relatively conservative, argument on this and other threads.
It's as they say, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be a…" Hopefully, you get the picture. Who do you think you're kidding? I've debated with enough liberals/leftists, who claimed to not be such, to see right through your attempts to claim not to be a liberal/leftist.
I find common ground with those on the left, who are center left, it's those on the far left that I find myself debating with.
Disagree all you want, but facts are facts, your denials don't change those facts. By the way, do continue proving Ann Coulter right about liberals and their debate tactics.
thorough9: You're dumb - no other way to say that. You're either dumb as hell or an easily manipulated fool. At either rate, arguing with a damned fool, is pointless. So, in your delusional stupidity, go ahead and proclaim your victory - your absolute, pointless victory.
Take it away Ann Coulter:
"If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?" -- Ann Coulter
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have 'racist, 'fascist,' 'homophobe,' 'ugly,' and a few other highly nuanced arguments in the quiver. But the loss of 'dumb' would nearly cripple them." -- Ann Coulter
In your case, thorough9, take tantrum related comments, and name calling, out of your arsenal, and you simply won't be able to generate a post representing your argument.
thorough9: Warned the F'n british - what a fucking joke... REPEAT POINT
When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons.
thorough9: BTW, the Sons of Liberty had been around since 1766, idiot, (you must have mis-read, then mis-thought, followed by a mis-type) not 1776 and Sons of Liberty
If you saw that, then you definitely saw this:
"Do you see the contradiction in this comment? If they were formed in 1776, how are they responsible for something that happened 3 years before they were formed? The American Revolution began in 1775. Any declaration claiming that a state was in rebellion before that time was just a knee jerk reaction to try to increase control of a state." - herfacechair
That was in response to your attempts to plagiarize something as your own:
"Paul Revere was a member of the Sons of Liberty, a group of rebellious colonists formed to protect the rights of the colonists from the British government after 1766. The Sons of Liberty were responsible for the Boston Tea party in 1773, which led to the Intolerable Acts, an intense crackdown by the British government), and a counter-mobilization by the Patriots that led directly to the American Revolution." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty)
Your own source indicates that they've been around before 1766, if you read further, you'd notice that they were loyal to the crown…
The fact that you'd go after a simple error, but avoid the question and thrust of my question, speaks volumes of your lack of confidence in your own argument. If anything, it shows your desperation in this debate.
thorough9: - if they were so patriotic, just who were they seeking liberty from.
They were loyal to the crown until the revolution started. This countered your insinuation that they were formed specifically to oppose the UK.
thorough9: That's as logical as your "there are dissenters today who are not in open rebellion" argument.
What I actually said:
"There are groups of people in the United States today, that advocate rebellion against the US government. But guess what? We're not in a state of rebellion against the United States Government. This is another example of you using strawman arguments. " - herfacechair
And you're wondering why I’d question your ability to understand simple English. I'd tell you to find an 8th grader so that he could break, what I say to you, in terms that you could understand… but he'd/she'd be too young to have access to this message board.
The only logic that's lacking is your misinterpretation of what I said.
thorough9: There are no dissenters today attacking merchant vessels and dumping their cargo into the ocean - that's open rebellion, Idiot. INDUCTIVE FALLACY
First, in simplest terms, an attack on merchant vessels, and dumping their cargo into the sea, would be an attack on the shipping company, as well as an attack on the businesses using that shipping company. It's a type of economic warfare. That wouldn't constitute a rebellion against the United States government, or the country whose flag those vessels are flying.
The Boston Tea Party was an economic protest against the British East India Company. Their tea got dumped into the harbor. The Colonials knew that taxes related to tea were meant to try to save the British East India Company from going belly up.
Second, my argument was that even though there are groups in the US that advocate a rebellion against our government, the American people aren't in a state of revolt. I made that comment to counter your insinuation that the Boston Tea Party was us being in a state of revolt.
Third, you're forgetting the antigovernment actions of Timothy McVeigh. He timed his attack to coincide with the anniversary of the shot heard round the world. Despite his act, the American people weren't in a state of revolutionary war against the government.
My analogies still stand.
thorough9: And think of something new. Your blue-font, repititious talking points are tiresome and just plain fucking boring.....
Since I've been addressing you almost point by point, common sense would dictate that if you keep repeating yourself, the responses would keep repeating themselves. If you're tired of my responses being, "repetitive," then you need to quit making the same points over and over again. If you fail to do that, you're going to see the same rebuttals over and over again.
You saying the above to me is like you commanding the "red" stove burner to quit burning you every time you keep touching it.
thorough9: Warn the British Regulars that they weren't gonna take away our arms.... absolutely fucking pathetic... REPEAT POINT
You see, like this. Notice how many times I've flagged your repeat comments with "repeat point." The longer you stay in this fight, the chances go up that more of your statements will be flagged as repeat points.
So here goes:
When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons." - herfacechair
thorough9: Your opinion is officially shit.
In order to dismiss my statements as just "opinion," you have to prove them "wrong." You've miserably failed to do that. You can't even answer the basic questions that I've asked you.
If anybody in this argument is full of shit, it's you.
thorough9, after I mentioned how Ann Coulter was right about you, you thoroughly proved her right again in your response to me. I laughed my ass off reading your reply, LOL, dude! You're so predictable! Ann Coulter described you to a "T."
But, I take great joy in hammering people like you. I know the real reason you're doing what you're doing… why else would I be able to get the responses from you that I expect to get from you? This is fun.
thorough9: Palin is indeed an idiot, it just rubs me
when assholes try and distort the truth to make it fit their agenda. REPEAT POINTSo far, "genius," the only thing you've done was froth at the mouth at Palin's statement, you advanced no valid argument to prove her wrong. What she tried to communicate came closer to the truth than the watered down version of history that you people tend to have a death grip hold over.
thorough9: And Toilet-Face,
LOL, my face tends to feel more of a woman's ass than her toilet does.
thorough9: Mr. Shit-Licker,
I've performed DATO on a couple of women since posting on ECCIE. Their asses were pretty clean though.
However; if I wanted to find shit, all I have to do read your posts, which puts sewers to shame. Your posts give you away as a walking cesspool. As much shit as you spew on this message board, I hope that you don't kiss women with your lips.
I'd tell you to go ahead and take a dump, but I'm afraid that it'd result in your inability to generate posts here… something about running out of material to post.
thorough9: all of the pages upon pages of bullshit that you've posted is purely pointless
You remind me of a bunch of teenagers dismissing their parent's wisdom as "bullshit" and "pointless."
What you dismiss as "pointless" is a reasoned, fact and logic based argument. But, I could understand why you wouldn't see that. Your horse blinders appear to be strong enough to not only blind you to the facts, but to block your one brain celled operation from all attacks of reason.
thorough9: and you've yet to prove anything
The proof and logic are there. The stress shields that you've set up to protect your one brain celled operation from all attacks of reason and logic blind you to that fact. Your statements remind me of a kid, putting his hands to his ears, and saying, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you...."
thorough9: other than the fact that you cannot logically process truth
My refusal to drink the Koolaid that you're addicted to doesn't constitute my "inability" to logically process truth. When you claim that your drivel is the "truth," you insult the real truth.
Here's how a critical thinker would see that statement:
"If you don't agree with me, you're unable to logically process truth"
But, you see, the problem is that what you think is "truth" is just your misguided opinion.
thorough9: and that your overblown ego
Don't mistake my determination to argue, using facts, against someone arguing from misconception, as my having an "overblown ego." If anything, your continuing to be in this fight demonstrates the fact that you've got an overblown ego. The later is the main engine that's driving you in this thread.
thorough9: would have you to believe that somehow, you know something, or can process facts, in some way that is superior to and above others.
Because of your reaction to the history facts that I've presented on this thread, I could say that I know something, and possess facts, that are superior to and above what certain people here hold. I mean, that's pure common sense… if someone has access to the facts that others don't have access to, that former is obviously more knowledgeable on a certain topic than the later.
Common sense… try it… you might come across as being more reasonable here.
thorough9: You're an idiot
Hey kid, do your parents know that you're on their computer posting on an adult site? Go do your homework.
thorough9: as is your mentor, Ann Coulter.
I came to my own conclusions, and assessments, long before I came across Ann Coulter's works.
thorough9: Actually, she's not an idiot
See, you're so wrong that even you find something wrong with what you said before, then come up with an argument as to why your previous statement was wrong. But, since you had just changed your mind, what did you do with the diaper?
thorough9: - she's either brilliant or she has a brilliant strategist.
You may be as brilliant as a burnt out bulb, but at least you can recognize the brilliance of those better than you.
thorough9: She understands what many other politicians, conservatives and liberals understand: how to motivate and manipulate
I could tell that you've never read any of her books… but that doesn't seem to stop you from trying to impress us with your stupidity. If you've read her books, you'd notice that she points things out that many media outlets don't like to point out. She's not attempting to cause people to think a certain way.
She already knows that those liberals like you won't read her books. But many Americans, in the middle and to the right, will read her books. She's doing what any writer, wanting to make money, would do. Provide something that others would read.
thorough9: idiotic sheep-ple like yourself;
I see little difference between your drivel and the talking points of many liberal opinion leaders. You're acting like the black pot calling the black kettle black. My assessments are based on my experiences and research. Yours seem to come from misguided sources… sources that you've failed to double check on. Speak for yourself "brain."
thorough9: how to feed you their opinions,
If you read Ann Coulter's books, you'd notice that they're jam packed with verifiable sources. The part of her book, dedicated to her sources, form chapters of their own. What she does is equivalent to you writing your observations down, and making references to pictures that you've taken.
That's not what a reasonable person would call "feeding you their opinions."
thorough9: and play to your self-grandiose ideas or mental superiority
I never claimed to be mentally superior. But, that concept seems to be getting under your skin. I could tell that somewhere, in that empty coconut husk that you call your head, something is trying to tell you that you don't have a point in this argument. But, your ego seems hell bent on silencing that one brain celled operation of yours. Heaven forbid that it sends signals out that doesn't make your ego feel good.
thorough9: and in a case of the emperor's new clothes,
Actually, "Emperor's new clothes" is applicable to the arguments you've been using on this and other threads.
thorough9: have your idiotic ass believe that somehow, someway, you have an intellectual one-up on everybody else in the world - you're one of the few that actually get it.
This is more evidence that there's a side of you that sees that the opposition has a valid point in this argument, and that you don't. You can't make a valid argument, and you know that you're making a series of week arguments.
But, your ego, and your false sense of being "undefeated in debate," refuse to acknowledge what the side of you, that makes sense, is trying to communicate. Your statement is just another example of your stress shields being set up to protect your ego from reality.
thorough9: Ann Coulter is rich - she makes a living by catering to the
I've only read 4 books from her, either with a killer discount, or free. That was a few years ago. They confirmed what I had already suspected.
thorough9: oxymoronically educated, but small-minded and selfish dumb-asses of the world, like yourself.
You're on a mission here, aren't you? You're on a mission to spread ignorance, and that's a task you seem to be going above and beyond to accomplish.
thorough9: You have a case of the stupids that all of the degrees in the world couldn't cure.......And to add to your stupidity
Says the guy whose argument makes the strongest argument for re-incarnation… there's no way that he'd achieve this level of stupidity in one lifetime.
thorough9: and closed-mindedness,
You've argued from the surface… what's traditionally known about the Revolutionary War. I've introduced facts, the variables at play behind the scenes, and you've consistently insisted on rejecting them. If anybody is being closed-minded, it's you.
When someone like you argues that someone like me is "closed minded," you're really complaining that getting me to buy into your nonsense is impossible.
thorough9: you assume that i must be a Liberal b/c I disagree with your POV. I disagree with open advocation of all stupidity, of which you apparently have an inexhaustible supply. You're just another idiot running around claiming to see something that's not really there b/c you think that seeing what's not there is an indication of your superior intellect. I.D.I.O.T.
Need I remind you of what you said?
"- and before you bring up the POTUS(more of your partisan, irrelevant bullshit)," - thorough9
"…or republican bullshit wrapped up in a 'pretty', palatable, face - better her than Karl Rove, huh." - thorough9
POTUS = President of The United States, who happens to be Democrat. You said that in response to my pointing to him misspeaking… You've also demonstrated hostility to posters that have advanced a conservative, or relatively conservative, argument on this and other threads.
It's as they say, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be a…" Hopefully, you get the picture. Who do you think you're kidding? I've debated with enough liberals/leftists, who claimed to not be such, to see right through your attempts to claim not to be a liberal/leftist.
I find common ground with those on the left, who are center left, it's those on the far left that I find myself debating with.
Disagree all you want, but facts are facts, your denials don't change those facts. By the way, do continue proving Ann Coulter right about liberals and their debate tactics.
thorough9: You're dumb - no other way to say that. You're either dumb as hell or an easily manipulated fool. At either rate, arguing with a damned fool, is pointless. So, in your delusional stupidity, go ahead and proclaim your victory - your absolute, pointless victory.
Take it away Ann Coulter:
"If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?" -- Ann Coulter
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have 'racist, 'fascist,' 'homophobe,' 'ugly,' and a few other highly nuanced arguments in the quiver. But the loss of 'dumb' would nearly cripple them." -- Ann Coulter
In your case, thorough9, take tantrum related comments, and name calling, out of your arsenal, and you simply won't be able to generate a post representing your argument.
thorough9: Warned the F'n british - what a fucking joke... REPEAT POINT
When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons.
thorough9: BTW, the Sons of Liberty had been around since 1766, idiot, (you must have mis-read, then mis-thought, followed by a mis-type) not 1776 and Sons of Liberty
If you saw that, then you definitely saw this:
"Do you see the contradiction in this comment? If they were formed in 1776, how are they responsible for something that happened 3 years before they were formed? The American Revolution began in 1775. Any declaration claiming that a state was in rebellion before that time was just a knee jerk reaction to try to increase control of a state." - herfacechair
That was in response to your attempts to plagiarize something as your own:
"Paul Revere was a member of the Sons of Liberty, a group of rebellious colonists formed to protect the rights of the colonists from the British government after 1766. The Sons of Liberty were responsible for the Boston Tea party in 1773, which led to the Intolerable Acts, an intense crackdown by the British government), and a counter-mobilization by the Patriots that led directly to the American Revolution." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty)
Your own source indicates that they've been around before 1766, if you read further, you'd notice that they were loyal to the crown…
The fact that you'd go after a simple error, but avoid the question and thrust of my question, speaks volumes of your lack of confidence in your own argument. If anything, it shows your desperation in this debate.
thorough9: - if they were so patriotic, just who were they seeking liberty from.
They were loyal to the crown until the revolution started. This countered your insinuation that they were formed specifically to oppose the UK.
thorough9: That's as logical as your "there are dissenters today who are not in open rebellion" argument.
What I actually said:
"There are groups of people in the United States today, that advocate rebellion against the US government. But guess what? We're not in a state of rebellion against the United States Government. This is another example of you using strawman arguments. " - herfacechair
And you're wondering why I’d question your ability to understand simple English. I'd tell you to find an 8th grader so that he could break, what I say to you, in terms that you could understand… but he'd/she'd be too young to have access to this message board.
The only logic that's lacking is your misinterpretation of what I said.
thorough9: There are no dissenters today attacking merchant vessels and dumping their cargo into the ocean - that's open rebellion, Idiot. INDUCTIVE FALLACY
First, in simplest terms, an attack on merchant vessels, and dumping their cargo into the sea, would be an attack on the shipping company, as well as an attack on the businesses using that shipping company. It's a type of economic warfare. That wouldn't constitute a rebellion against the United States government, or the country whose flag those vessels are flying.
The Boston Tea Party was an economic protest against the British East India Company. Their tea got dumped into the harbor. The Colonials knew that taxes related to tea were meant to try to save the British East India Company from going belly up.
Second, my argument was that even though there are groups in the US that advocate a rebellion against our government, the American people aren't in a state of revolt. I made that comment to counter your insinuation that the Boston Tea Party was us being in a state of revolt.
Third, you're forgetting the antigovernment actions of Timothy McVeigh. He timed his attack to coincide with the anniversary of the shot heard round the world. Despite his act, the American people weren't in a state of revolutionary war against the government.
My analogies still stand.
thorough9: And think of something new. Your blue-font, repititious talking points are tiresome and just plain fucking boring.....
Since I've been addressing you almost point by point, common sense would dictate that if you keep repeating yourself, the responses would keep repeating themselves. If you're tired of my responses being, "repetitive," then you need to quit making the same points over and over again. If you fail to do that, you're going to see the same rebuttals over and over again.
You saying the above to me is like you commanding the "red" stove burner to quit burning you every time you keep touching it.
thorough9: Warn the British Regulars that they weren't gonna take away our arms.... absolutely fucking pathetic... REPEAT POINT
You see, like this. Notice how many times I've flagged your repeat comments with "repeat point." The longer you stay in this fight, the chances go up that more of your statements will be flagged as repeat points.
So here goes:
When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons." - herfacechair
thorough9: Your opinion is officially shit.
In order to dismiss my statements as just "opinion," you have to prove them "wrong." You've miserably failed to do that. You can't even answer the basic questions that I've asked you.
If anybody in this argument is full of shit, it's you.
- thorough9
- 06-18-2011, 01:29 AM
Boston in early summer of 1765 a group of shopkeepers and artisans who called themselves The Loyal Nine, began preparing for agitation against the Stamp Act. I suppose that it was the stamp company that they were getting ready to oppose. LOL. As that group grew, it came to be known as the Sons of Liberty. And grow it did! These were not the leading men of Boston, but rather workers and tradesmen. It was unseemly that they would be so agitated by a parliamentary act. Boston tea Party was an act against a tea company? LOL. Well i guess that the stamp company got it on this one. ROTFLMAO. Remember taxation w/o representation.....
For reasons of safety and secrecy, Sons of Liberty groups tended to meet late at night so as not to attract attention and detection of British officials and the American Loyalist supporters of the British Crown. Loyal to the crown, huh. LOL.
This secret patriotic society had its roots in the Committees of Correspondence. The "Committees" were colonial groups organized prior to the outbreak of the American War for Independence and were established for the purpose of formally organizing public opinion and coordinating patriotic actions against Great Britain. Loyal to the crown, you say...These original committees were loosely organized groups of private citizens formed in the New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island colonies from 1763-1764.
These are the words of The Paul Revere House, but with your "above-average" historical knowledge, you definitely know more about the subject than they do. LOL
In 1774 and the Spring of 1775 Paul Revere was employed by the Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Massachusetts Committee of Safety as an express rider to carry news, messages, and copies of resolutions as far away as New York and Philadelphia.
On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. Warn who? LOL. After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates, Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local "Sons of Liberty" committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row "by sea" across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching "by land" out Boston Neck. Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston).
On the way to Lexington, Revere "alarmed" the country-side, alarmed who? LOL. stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. "Noise!" cried Revere, "You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!" Warning delivered - to whom? LOL. After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol. Prescott escaped almost immediately, and Dawes soon after. Revere was held for some time and then released. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green.
But hey, don't take the "watered down version" here are excerpts from Paul Revere's actual account - taken in context - not in typical, bullshit four or five word sound-bytes ala somone trying to distort reality....
1. In the Fall of 1774 & Winter of 1775 I was one of upwards of thirty, cheifly mechanics, who formed our selves in to a Committee for the purpose of watching the Movements of the British Soldiers, and gaining every intelegence of the movements of the Tories. I Guess that PR was watching the people that he was supposed to be warning...... LMAO
2. On Tuesday evening, the 18th, it was observed, that a number of Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common. About 10 o'Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and begged that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock & Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was
thought they were the objets. Again, in his own words, PR expressly states his reason for getting on a horse and taking a ride....LMAO
3. After I had passed Charlestown Neck, & got nearly opposite where Mark was hung in chains, I saw two men on Horse back, under a Tree. When I got near them, I discovered they were British officer. One tryed to git a head of Me, & the other to take me. I turned my Horse very quick, & Galloped towards Charlestown neck, and then pushed for the Medford Road. The one who chased me, endeavoring to Cut me off, got into a Clay pond, near where the new Tavern is now built. I got clear of him, and went thro Medford, over the Bridge, & up to Menotomy. In Medford, I awaked the Captain of the Minute men; & after that, I alarmed almost every House, till I got to Lexington. Please explain why it is that PR, is running away from and evading the people that he is supposed to be warning..... LMAO. Note to idiots, PR also specifically states who he alarmed, and who he warned..... ROTFLMAO!!!!
4. I called for the Doctor & Daws to come up; -were two & we would have them in an Instant I was surrounded by four; - they had placed themselves in a Straight Road, that inclined each way; they had taken down a pair of Barrs on the North side of the Road, & two of them were under a tree in the pasture. The Docter being foremost, he came up;
and we tryed to git past them; (Why oh Why is PR trying to "git" away from the people that he is supposed to be warning? LMAO) but they being armed with pistols & swords, they forced us in to the pasture; -the Docter jumped his Horse over a low Stone wall, and got to Concord.
[Page 4]
I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,
and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,
& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he as- ked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. Now, if PR was to warn the "regulars", if the bells were to warn the "regulars, then why hadn't these "regulars" been warned? LOL. i guess that thay don't make bells like they used to. It must have been the new "militia/national guard only bells" ROTFLMAO!!! "He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. See, idiots, the first guy - see the red writing above, PR was just talking shit to " It's five-hundred muthafuckas waiting on your Torie-Red Asses" - lying to misguide - it wasn't a fucking "warning to the "regulars". And this second guy, the one who threatened to "blow out his brains", he doesn't tell him shit: 1. If he wasn't caught and 2. If he didn't threaten to "blow out his brains". ROTFLMAO. Fucking idiots....He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms. He then orderd them to advance, & to lead me in front. When we got to the Road, they turned down towards Lexington. When we had got about one Mile, the Major Rode up to the officer that was leading me, & told him to give me to the Sergeant. As soon as he took me, the Major orderd him, if I attempted to run, or any body insulted them, to blow my brains out.
We rode till we got near Lexington Meeting-house, when the Militia fired a Voley of Guns, which appeared to alarm them very much. The Major inqui-red of me how far it was to Cambridge, and if there were any other Road? After some consultation, the Major [Page 5] Major Rode up to the Sargent, & asked if his Horse was tired? He told answered him, he was - (He was a Sargent of Grenadiers, and had a small Horse) - then, said He, take that man's Horse. I dismounted, & the Sargent mounted my Horse, when they all rode towards Lexington Meeting-House. I went across
the Burying-ground, & some pastures, & came to the Revd. Mr. Clark's House, where I found Messrs. Hancok & Adams. I told them of my treatment, & they concluded to go from that House towards Woburn. I went with them, & a Mr. Lowell, who was a Clerk to Mr. Hancock. When we got to the House where they intended to stop, Mr. Lowell & I my self returned to Mr. Clark's, to find what was going on. When we got there, an elderly man came in; he said he had just come from the Tavern, that a Man had come from Boston, who said there were no British troops coming. Mr. Lowell & my self went towards the Tavern, when we met a Man on a full gallop, who told us the Troops were coming up the Rocks. We afterwards met another, who said they were close by. Mr. Lowell asked me to go to the Tavern with him, to a Bit a Trunk of papers belonging to Mr. Hancock. We went up Chamber; & while we were giting the Trunk,
we saw the British very near, upon a full March. We hurried to wards Mr. Clark's House. In our way, we passed through the Militia. There were about 50.
When we had got about 100 Yards from the meeting-House the British Troops appeard on both Sides of the Meeting-House. In their [Page 6]
In their Front was an Officer on Horse back. They made a
Short Halt; when I saw, & heard, a Gun fired, which appeared
to be a Pistol. Then I could distinguish two Guns, & then
a Continual roar of Musquetry; When we made off with the Trunk......Again, PR is running from the regulars that he is supposed to be warning that they're not gonna take away our weapons. ROTFLMAO!!!
There is no plagarism. I didn't realize that i was writing a term paper, so fuck you, and the quotes - MLA style, Bitch! LMAO! My words are in red lettering. You, sir, are a "regular"-ass idiot, who has supported another idiot who "mis-spoke" - is that what getting the story wrong is called now-a-days. LMAO. I know, Sarah Palin thought that the "Paul Revere" that she was talking about was the one from the Beastie Boyz song. ROTFLMAO. "Me 'n my horsey 'n a quart of beer" ROTFLMAO. Warned the British... LMAO. Talking about parrots? You, sir, are a pompous, arrogant, neo-conservative, stinger-less drone who's running around rubbing your impotent ass against random people and marveling aloud at your own "stinging" ability "I stung 'im good didn't I, COG". You are also an egotist who has run around talking about your "above-average" levels of understanding. You're not above-average. You're just regular, LMAO - not even regular - you're a below-average fool. Ann Coulter said this - Ann Coulter said that....silly little man who watches too much television. You, and the rest of the Junior Historical Society need to brush up on your comprehension skills. Reading is fundamental, but comprehending what you've read, applying common sense logic, apparently, is not. I guess that "common sense" isn't so common after all. If you still wanna argue, then take your "regular" ass to Boston, or wherever the fuck PR is buried - I'm sure that you wrote your community college thesis on that - and argue with him. He said it, I didn't. So long.......
FUCKING IDIOTS.... LMAO
Warned the British - I mean regulars. You do realize that the revolution did happen, don't you.... What does Ann Coulter say about that. LOL.
Rolling On The Floor, Laughing My ASS OFF - fucking Rolling
"ridin' 'cross the land, kickin' up sand, sheriff's posse on my tail cause i'm in demand" LMAO.
BTW, PR is my acronym for Paul Revere. I don't want to sift thru another 20 pages of blue bullshit talking about Puerto Rico. LMAO.
And COG, your new name is Tonto.... fucking sidekick.... LMAO!
And your opinion is still,officially, shit.
For reasons of safety and secrecy, Sons of Liberty groups tended to meet late at night so as not to attract attention and detection of British officials and the American Loyalist supporters of the British Crown. Loyal to the crown, huh. LOL.
This secret patriotic society had its roots in the Committees of Correspondence. The "Committees" were colonial groups organized prior to the outbreak of the American War for Independence and were established for the purpose of formally organizing public opinion and coordinating patriotic actions against Great Britain. Loyal to the crown, you say...These original committees were loosely organized groups of private citizens formed in the New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island colonies from 1763-1764.
These are the words of The Paul Revere House, but with your "above-average" historical knowledge, you definitely know more about the subject than they do. LOL
In 1774 and the Spring of 1775 Paul Revere was employed by the Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Massachusetts Committee of Safety as an express rider to carry news, messages, and copies of resolutions as far away as New York and Philadelphia.
On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. Warn who? LOL. After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates, Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local "Sons of Liberty" committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row "by sea" across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching "by land" out Boston Neck. Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston).
On the way to Lexington, Revere "alarmed" the country-side, alarmed who? LOL. stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. "Noise!" cried Revere, "You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!" Warning delivered - to whom? LOL. After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol. Prescott escaped almost immediately, and Dawes soon after. Revere was held for some time and then released. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green.
But hey, don't take the "watered down version" here are excerpts from Paul Revere's actual account - taken in context - not in typical, bullshit four or five word sound-bytes ala somone trying to distort reality....
1. In the Fall of 1774 & Winter of 1775 I was one of upwards of thirty, cheifly mechanics, who formed our selves in to a Committee for the purpose of watching the Movements of the British Soldiers, and gaining every intelegence of the movements of the Tories. I Guess that PR was watching the people that he was supposed to be warning...... LMAO
2. On Tuesday evening, the 18th, it was observed, that a number of Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common. About 10 o'Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and begged that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock & Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was
thought they were the objets. Again, in his own words, PR expressly states his reason for getting on a horse and taking a ride....LMAO
3. After I had passed Charlestown Neck, & got nearly opposite where Mark was hung in chains, I saw two men on Horse back, under a Tree. When I got near them, I discovered they were British officer. One tryed to git a head of Me, & the other to take me. I turned my Horse very quick, & Galloped towards Charlestown neck, and then pushed for the Medford Road. The one who chased me, endeavoring to Cut me off, got into a Clay pond, near where the new Tavern is now built. I got clear of him, and went thro Medford, over the Bridge, & up to Menotomy. In Medford, I awaked the Captain of the Minute men; & after that, I alarmed almost every House, till I got to Lexington. Please explain why it is that PR, is running away from and evading the people that he is supposed to be warning..... LMAO. Note to idiots, PR also specifically states who he alarmed, and who he warned..... ROTFLMAO!!!!
4. I called for the Doctor & Daws to come up; -were two & we would have them in an Instant I was surrounded by four; - they had placed themselves in a Straight Road, that inclined each way; they had taken down a pair of Barrs on the North side of the Road, & two of them were under a tree in the pasture. The Docter being foremost, he came up;
and we tryed to git past them; (Why oh Why is PR trying to "git" away from the people that he is supposed to be warning? LMAO) but they being armed with pistols & swords, they forced us in to the pasture; -the Docter jumped his Horse over a low Stone wall, and got to Concord.
[Page 4]
I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,
and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,
& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he as- ked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. Now, if PR was to warn the "regulars", if the bells were to warn the "regulars, then why hadn't these "regulars" been warned? LOL. i guess that thay don't make bells like they used to. It must have been the new "militia/national guard only bells" ROTFLMAO!!! "He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. See, idiots, the first guy - see the red writing above, PR was just talking shit to " It's five-hundred muthafuckas waiting on your Torie-Red Asses" - lying to misguide - it wasn't a fucking "warning to the "regulars". And this second guy, the one who threatened to "blow out his brains", he doesn't tell him shit: 1. If he wasn't caught and 2. If he didn't threaten to "blow out his brains". ROTFLMAO. Fucking idiots....He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms. He then orderd them to advance, & to lead me in front. When we got to the Road, they turned down towards Lexington. When we had got about one Mile, the Major Rode up to the officer that was leading me, & told him to give me to the Sergeant. As soon as he took me, the Major orderd him, if I attempted to run, or any body insulted them, to blow my brains out.
We rode till we got near Lexington Meeting-house, when the Militia fired a Voley of Guns, which appeared to alarm them very much. The Major inqui-red of me how far it was to Cambridge, and if there were any other Road? After some consultation, the Major [Page 5] Major Rode up to the Sargent, & asked if his Horse was tired? He told answered him, he was - (He was a Sargent of Grenadiers, and had a small Horse) - then, said He, take that man's Horse. I dismounted, & the Sargent mounted my Horse, when they all rode towards Lexington Meeting-House. I went across
the Burying-ground, & some pastures, & came to the Revd. Mr. Clark's House, where I found Messrs. Hancok & Adams. I told them of my treatment, & they concluded to go from that House towards Woburn. I went with them, & a Mr. Lowell, who was a Clerk to Mr. Hancock. When we got to the House where they intended to stop, Mr. Lowell & I my self returned to Mr. Clark's, to find what was going on. When we got there, an elderly man came in; he said he had just come from the Tavern, that a Man had come from Boston, who said there were no British troops coming. Mr. Lowell & my self went towards the Tavern, when we met a Man on a full gallop, who told us the Troops were coming up the Rocks. We afterwards met another, who said they were close by. Mr. Lowell asked me to go to the Tavern with him, to a Bit a Trunk of papers belonging to Mr. Hancock. We went up Chamber; & while we were giting the Trunk,
we saw the British very near, upon a full March. We hurried to wards Mr. Clark's House. In our way, we passed through the Militia. There were about 50.
When we had got about 100 Yards from the meeting-House the British Troops appeard on both Sides of the Meeting-House. In their [Page 6]
In their Front was an Officer on Horse back. They made a
Short Halt; when I saw, & heard, a Gun fired, which appeared
to be a Pistol. Then I could distinguish two Guns, & then
a Continual roar of Musquetry; When we made off with the Trunk......Again, PR is running from the regulars that he is supposed to be warning that they're not gonna take away our weapons. ROTFLMAO!!!
There is no plagarism. I didn't realize that i was writing a term paper, so fuck you, and the quotes - MLA style, Bitch! LMAO! My words are in red lettering. You, sir, are a "regular"-ass idiot, who has supported another idiot who "mis-spoke" - is that what getting the story wrong is called now-a-days. LMAO. I know, Sarah Palin thought that the "Paul Revere" that she was talking about was the one from the Beastie Boyz song. ROTFLMAO. "Me 'n my horsey 'n a quart of beer" ROTFLMAO. Warned the British... LMAO. Talking about parrots? You, sir, are a pompous, arrogant, neo-conservative, stinger-less drone who's running around rubbing your impotent ass against random people and marveling aloud at your own "stinging" ability "I stung 'im good didn't I, COG". You are also an egotist who has run around talking about your "above-average" levels of understanding. You're not above-average. You're just regular, LMAO - not even regular - you're a below-average fool. Ann Coulter said this - Ann Coulter said that....silly little man who watches too much television. You, and the rest of the Junior Historical Society need to brush up on your comprehension skills. Reading is fundamental, but comprehending what you've read, applying common sense logic, apparently, is not. I guess that "common sense" isn't so common after all. If you still wanna argue, then take your "regular" ass to Boston, or wherever the fuck PR is buried - I'm sure that you wrote your community college thesis on that - and argue with him. He said it, I didn't. So long.......
FUCKING IDIOTS.... LMAO
Warned the British - I mean regulars. You do realize that the revolution did happen, don't you.... What does Ann Coulter say about that. LOL.
Rolling On The Floor, Laughing My ASS OFF - fucking Rolling
"ridin' 'cross the land, kickin' up sand, sheriff's posse on my tail cause i'm in demand" LMAO.
BTW, PR is my acronym for Paul Revere. I don't want to sift thru another 20 pages of blue bullshit talking about Puerto Rico. LMAO.
And COG, your new name is Tonto.... fucking sidekick.... LMAO!
And your opinion is still,officially,
shit.
- Longermonger
- 06-18-2011, 02:46 AM
To recap...
A) Paul Revere didn't intend to be taken prisoner and warn the Regulars in person.
B) The primary purpose of the alarm system was to alert Colonists, not Regulars.
C) Some speculate that the secondary purpose of the alarm system was to warn the Regulars. Did it warn them? Was that before or after PR 'warned' them in person? Secondary, unintentional, and ineffectual alarm system...
D) A certain poster has been very persnickety about the use of the word "Regulars" instead of "British" but has been very loose with the word "warned" when he should have instead been using "alarmed". He should ask himself if Paul Revere warned or alarmed the Regulars. The correct answer is alarmed. The incorrect answer is warned.
A) Paul Revere didn't intend to be taken prisoner and warn the Regulars in person.
B) The primary purpose of the alarm system was to alert Colonists, not Regulars.
C) Some speculate that the secondary purpose of the alarm system was to warn the Regulars. Did it warn them? Was that before or after PR 'warned' them in person? Secondary, unintentional, and ineffectual alarm system...
D) A certain poster has been very persnickety about the use of the word "Regulars" instead of "British" but has been very loose with the word "warned" when he should have instead been using "alarmed". He should ask himself if Paul Revere warned or alarmed the Regulars. The correct answer is alarmed. The incorrect answer is warned.