This entry was posted on June 6, 2011 at 7:13 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Revere ended up talking to the British with a gun at his head, but that is not WHY he was riding. Palin was not “right”, she just repeated a mishmash of words she had just heard on the tour.
Speaking of Princess Pinhead..loved the fake apology to Romney. The smirk on her face when she said “didn’t mean to step on anyone’s toes” was a nice touch.
Revere was captured and questioned by the British soldiers at gunpoint. He told them of the army’s movement from Boston, and that British army troops would be in some danger if they approached Lexington, because of the large number of hostile militia gathered there. Everything Revere told his British captors had a single goal, to move the soldiers away from Lexington, where he had left Hancock and Adams. Contrary to mythology, Revere did not ride shouting, “The British are coming!” and about 40 riders, starting with Revere who had been monitoring the Brits, quietly warned the colonists of the impending invasion. But it was Paul Revere, himself, who scared the Brits from advancing further on Lexington and helped John Hancock to escape.
And liberals complain that we’re too quick to dimiss charges of racism.
It’s a serious charge. Or should be. A racist is immoral and unethical at the very least. And probably committing crimes if he or she is practicing it publicly in employment or other actions.
And it’s, as Walker Percy noted, the Original Sin of America. We have a dreadful and shameful history about it.
But if you want us to take is seriously, then don’t be so casual in throwing it around.
Sarah Palin was right only if you believe Paul Revere was there to talk to the British. He was there to protect Hancock and Adams, and in the process was stopped by the British. If you see that fact in Palin’s ramblings, you’re delusional.
“What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?”
That’s what Sarah called a “gotcha” question on FNS yesterday. Here’s what most irritates me about Our Little Princess: She has no respect for the people listening to her. She mashes up slogans and pretends they’re “ideas”; makes up “facts” out of thin air simply to get to the “don’t touch our guns” line; and treats any question that results in a stupid answer as the questioner’s fault
Pay attention when she’s talking to you, and ask yourself one question, “How many more times am I going to accept my intelligence being insulted in service to this woman’s self-marketing?”
I don’t get it. If the local historians who study this thing day in and out say she’s right then how come she isn’t right? Did she fumble her statement of Revere and made it sound incoherent? No doubt but if she’s right she’s right.
Has CNN sent out feelers yet to see if Weiner is interested in hosting a program called Tube Steak Smothered in Underwear? I think it would fit in just right either before or after Spitzer.
I’m very, very disappointed in this whole Anthony Weiner thing, now that it has come out to be true. I don’t care for his apology, either. He’s the last guy I expected to be involved in something like this.
I recently saw him in a debate regarding the Gaza conflict, and his overwhelming defense of Israel (especially claiming there is no Israeli occupation in the West Bank), and that was a big disappointment in itself, but this makes my view of him a whole lot worse.
By the way, he can forget even running for Mayor of NY, as he seemed to want to do. There is no way people are going to vote for you if there is any possibility for you to do stuff like this. I know I wouldn’t.
How many flippin times do I have to say this? Palin is technically correct that Revere was eventually stopped and questioned by the British. THAT’S NOT WHY HE WAS ON THAT MISSION.
No, she didn’t “fumble” anything. She managed to discuss the Ride of Paul Revere without seeming to know what he was there for. She heard the words “British”, “shots”, and “bells”, and connected them to something vaguely pleasing to the NRA. I have no clue why ANYONE is trying to cover for her. She doesn’t know what she’s talking about. This is ridiculous.
Okay, let it be noted that Congresswoman Wassermann-Schultz retracted her Jim Crow analogy to the GOP-sponsored voter registration/requirements changes in several states.
She said:
“Jim Crow was the wrong analogy to use. But I don’t regret calling attention to the efforts in a number of states with Republican dominated legislatures, including Florida, to restrict access to the ballot box for all kinds of voters, but particularly young voters, African Americans and Hispanic Americans.”
It’s a start.
Although I think it won’t be the last time she’ll have to pull a statement back.
Right, there’s no difference between forcing black people to use segregated facilities and ride in the back of a bus and asking all voters to show an ID before voting.
I’ll assume it wasn’t intended but that’s really – again, unintentionally – trivializing what they suffered.
She’s right about the ID proposal, not the Jim Crow analogy. What, I’m supposed to support a comment she herself has disavowed? Exactly how would that make sense?
“She heard the words “British”, “shots”, and “bells”, and connected them to something vaguely pleasing to the NRA. I have no clue why ANYONE is trying to cover for her. She doesn’t know what she’s talking about. This is ridiculous.”
So you know for sure that she “heard” the words because she’s too dumb to read, right?
“I have no clue why ANYONE is trying to cover for her. “Some of the folks who are saying she is correct are not covering for her they are university professors, lawyers and even a few journalists who actually did some research.
“She doesn’t know what she’s talking about.” She did know what she was talking about – maybe you are just irritated because you keep calling her “dumb” and maybe she is just playing the press for fools?
I will admit that my understanding of Paul Revere was “the poem” that we all have heard in our schooling but after this “little” incident and doing more reading I have learned more about the Revolutionary War and Paul Revere’s part in it.
Pam, read the letter. Revere was stopped by the British after he had warned Hancock and Adams. I’ve said HALF A DOZEN TIMES that she is technically correct about a portion of the story, but she answered the “gotcha” question as if the PURPOSE of Revere’s ride was to warn the BRITISH. Which makes not a lick of sense.
Because it’s not unheard-of for people to agree with nutbag comments which are made to appeal to a political base, despite the fact that a politician is shamed into disavowing them. ”She was right” made no differentiation whatsoever between opposition to certain laws, and making some screw-loose comparison to ‘Jim Crow laws’. That’s how.
My mistake. I’ve been aware of this ID story from long before anyone used “Jim Crow” to describe it. I focused on that part, and should have made my comment clear.
What, I’m supposed to support a comment she herself has disavowed? Exactly how would that make sense
I will note, however, that you’re usually not shy or reticent in criticizing stupid comments from female politicians.
At least ones that have an “R” after their names.
I assumed – incorrectly – that your silence in this case was agreement.
I’ll also double note that the Republicans are trying to limit Democratic votes, not just black or Hispanic ones. Let’s be blunt: If black Americans were mostly Republican voters instead of mostly Democratic ones, these state GOPs wouldn’t be enacting these requirements.
But if they did, Democrats wouldn’t be complaining about it.
I don’t know about all of these laws, but I’ll never understand the irrational opposition to have to present an ID at a voting place. It’s almost as if there’s some other reason for opposing it.
Poorer people (who more often vote Democrat than Republican) tend to have more shakey legal situations than the more well off, and may not be thrilled to be confronted with a “show us your papers please” confrontation at the polling place.
I agree with Steve, this is an attempt to stifle Democratic turnout, period. It’s not race-based.
I assumed – incorrectly – that your silence in this case was agreement.
By the time I got to the story, Wasserman-Schultz had already apologized. “I’m sorry” is a very important phrase. I take it very seriously, accept when it’s said with a dishonest smirk (see: Palin “apologizing” for hijacking Mitt’s announcement).
Those “victims” are real, and unless there’s proof of massive voter fraud by people who somehow managed to register to vote without proof of their identity, it’s nothing more than a “stop the poor from voting” gambit. How ’bout the GOP tries getting more lower-income voters, instead of trying to lock them out?
Maybe we don’t believe that entire groups of people are incapable of acquiring a simple identification. Maybe liberals should look into their assumptions about people’s helplessness.
You missed the point. It’s not about them not being able to produce it; it’s about being asked to by a government official. Some people – say, with an unpaid traffic warrant – are dodgy about being confronted like that. And those people are usually poor.
-tend to have more shakey legal situations than the more well off-
If any of these poorer people happen to be on any form of government-assistance that involves cashing a cheque, the endorsement requirements printed on it include a showing of positive ID… two forms, I believe. So if someone, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to produce verifiable proof of citizenship then that someone should be willing to accept not being allowed to cast a vote.
You guys have clearly never been poor, and don’t understand the psychology and fears at play. It’s a world of constant crisis..I’m sure utterly unimaginable to those who’ve never experienced it. That’s just an observation, not a criticism. People who’ve never been there can’t be expected to know what it’s like.
The push for ID checks at polling places is a waste of time and money, anyway. Most people whose lives are so jacked up they don’t have a valid state ID, are generally too jacked up to vote. This whole thing is stupid.
^ Shows you entirely miss the point of requiring ID at polling places. It isn’t to discourage these people from casting their lawful vote, it is to prevent fraudulent votes being cast.
Uh, yeah, I get that you believe the official story. I do not. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud of any kind in this country. This is just politics from a bunch of morons who thinks it’s fun to pick on the poor.
Liberals fight it because it’s anti-poor. It’s a nasty message from the GOP, and I’ll support any lib who exposes it for what it is: divisive grandstanding against the weakest segment of society.
No evidence of voter-fraud that you choose to acknowledge. You’d rather just believe an anti-conservative fantasy. Luckily, most people are too smart to buy it.
The phrase is “widespread voter fraud”. If you have the evidence, cough it up. Otherwise, this anti-poor legislation is nothing more than a meanspirited gimmick. Imagine that..the Republican Party not giving a damn about the poor. Shocking.
Yes, dear, we’ll never be as effective at buying their votes as your guys. Tough luck for us. And I could also do without hearing the term ‘manufactured outrage’ from people who can raise such a blinding cloud of bullsh|t over a photo-ID. No one with an ounce of sense buys it. But keep bleating.
There ain’t nothing ‘manufactured’ about my outrage. When I was young I was very poor, and spent some time without a standard ID because, A). I couldn’t track down my original birth certificate because, B). I was too wrecked emotionally to figure out how to do it.
I take this story very personally, and I would ask you to give me a huge break and drop it.
June 6, 2011 at 10:34 am
I love how Democrats try to bring us all together.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0611/DWS_GOP_wants_to_bring_back_Jim_Crow.html
June 6, 2011 at 10:47 am
^Oh man. Who is the party with the most civility again?
At first I though Palin messed up again about Paul Revere, but was she right?
http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353
June 6, 2011 at 10:52 am
– civility –
Yeah, but they don’t play racial games for their own benefit, and we’re stupid for thinking so.
June 6, 2011 at 11:04 am
It is very unfortunate.
June 6, 2011 at 11:17 am
From the second paragraph: “Roland Martin asked Wasserman Schutlz …”
Have two more miserable people EVER existed?
June 6, 2011 at 11:24 am
Revere ended up talking to the British with a gun at his head, but that is not WHY he was riding. Palin was not “right”, she just repeated a mishmash of words she had just heard on the tour.
Speaking of Princess Pinhead..loved the fake apology to Romney. The smirk on her face when she said “didn’t mean to step on anyone’s toes” was a nice touch.
June 6, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Excerpted from Wikipedia:
Revere was captured and questioned by the British soldiers at gunpoint. He told them of the army’s movement from Boston, and that British army troops would be in some danger if they approached Lexington, because of the large number of hostile militia gathered there. Everything Revere told his British captors had a single goal, to move the soldiers away from Lexington, where he had left Hancock and Adams. Contrary to mythology, Revere did not ride shouting, “The British are coming!” and about 40 riders, starting with Revere who had been monitoring the Brits, quietly warned the colonists of the impending invasion. But it was Paul Revere, himself, who scared the Brits from advancing further on Lexington and helped John Hancock to escape.
Looks like Sarah Palin was right.
June 6, 2011 at 12:13 pm
I love how Democrats try to bring us all together
And liberals complain that we’re too quick to dimiss charges of racism.
It’s a serious charge. Or should be. A racist is immoral and unethical at the very least. And probably committing crimes if he or she is practicing it publicly in employment or other actions.
And it’s, as Walker Percy noted, the Original Sin of America. We have a dreadful and shameful history about it.
But if you want us to take is seriously, then don’t be so casual in throwing it around.
Yeah, who am I kidding?
June 6, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Sarah Palin was right only if you believe Paul Revere was there to talk to the British. He was there to protect Hancock and Adams, and in the process was stopped by the British. If you see that fact in Palin’s ramblings, you’re delusional.
June 6, 2011 at 12:22 pm
You might want to double-check anything on the Revere Wiki page, btw. Palin fans are editing it.
June 6, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Having said that, the Republicans are historically tone deaf to the symbolism of such actions and how many black Americans view them.
Voter fraud may be a problem (I think it’s really not a significant one) but actions like this are overkill.
Er, can you be tone deaf to a symbol? Well, if you can they sure are.
June 6, 2011 at 12:34 pm
“What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?”
That’s what Sarah called a “gotcha” question on FNS yesterday. Here’s what most irritates me about Our Little Princess: She has no respect for the people listening to her. She mashes up slogans and pretends they’re “ideas”; makes up “facts” out of thin air simply to get to the “don’t touch our guns” line; and treats any question that results in a stupid answer as the questioner’s fault
Pay attention when she’s talking to you, and ask yourself one question, “How many more times am I going to accept my intelligence being insulted in service to this woman’s self-marketing?”
June 6, 2011 at 12:40 pm
-Fans editing Wiki-
I only used that excerpt because it said better what I had learned in school.
June 6, 2011 at 1:10 pm
I don’t get it. If the local historians who study this thing day in and out say she’s right then how come she isn’t right? Did she fumble her statement of Revere and made it sound incoherent? No doubt but if she’s right she’s right.
June 6, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Has CNN sent out feelers yet to see if Weiner is interested in hosting a program called Tube Steak Smothered in Underwear? I think it would fit in just right either before or after Spitzer.
June 6, 2011 at 2:16 pm
I’m very, very disappointed in this whole Anthony Weiner thing, now that it has come out to be true. I don’t care for his apology, either. He’s the last guy I expected to be involved in something like this.
I recently saw him in a debate regarding the Gaza conflict, and his overwhelming defense of Israel (especially claiming there is no Israeli occupation in the West Bank), and that was a big disappointment in itself, but this makes my view of him a whole lot worse.
By the way, he can forget even running for Mayor of NY, as he seemed to want to do. There is no way people are going to vote for you if there is any possibility for you to do stuff like this. I know I wouldn’t.
June 6, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Sarah Palin: another person saying she was correct: Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson using Paul Revere’s actual words
http://tinyurl.com/3plwlog
People will never believe her even after she has been proven correct – she could have chosen her words more carefully but this jist is correct.
June 6, 2011 at 2:42 pm
How many flippin times do I have to say this? Palin is technically correct that Revere was eventually stopped and questioned by the British. THAT’S NOT WHY HE WAS ON THAT MISSION.
June 6, 2011 at 2:44 pm
That’s why we are saying that she fumbled her speech yes but she was right.
June 6, 2011 at 2:54 pm
No, she didn’t “fumble” anything. She managed to discuss the Ride of Paul Revere without seeming to know what he was there for. She heard the words “British”, “shots”, and “bells”, and connected them to something vaguely pleasing to the NRA. I have no clue why ANYONE is trying to cover for her. She doesn’t know what she’s talking about. This is ridiculous.
June 6, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Okay, let it be noted that Congresswoman Wassermann-Schultz retracted her Jim Crow analogy to the GOP-sponsored voter registration/requirements changes in several states.
She said:
“Jim Crow was the wrong analogy to use. But I don’t regret calling attention to the efforts in a number of states with Republican dominated legislatures, including Florida, to restrict access to the ballot box for all kinds of voters, but particularly young voters, African Americans and Hispanic Americans.”
It’s a start.
Although I think it won’t be the last time she’ll have to pull a statement back.
She’s a bit of a loose cannon.
June 6, 2011 at 3:21 pm
She’s a bit of a loose cannon.
She’s also right.
June 6, 2011 at 3:23 pm
^ Snort. Why does that not surprise me?
June 6, 2011 at 3:32 pm
^She’s also right
Right, there’s no difference between forcing black people to use segregated facilities and ride in the back of a bus and asking all voters to show an ID before voting.
I’ll assume it wasn’t intended but that’s really – again, unintentionally – trivializing what they suffered.
June 6, 2011 at 3:40 pm
She’s right about the ID proposal, not the Jim Crow analogy. What, I’m supposed to support a comment she herself has disavowed? Exactly how would that make sense?
June 6, 2011 at 3:41 pm
“She heard the words “British”, “shots”, and “bells”, and connected them to something vaguely pleasing to the NRA. I have no clue why ANYONE is trying to cover for her. She doesn’t know what she’s talking about. This is ridiculous.”
So you know for sure that she “heard” the words because she’s too dumb to read, right?
“I have no clue why ANYONE is trying to cover for her. “Some of the folks who are saying she is correct are not covering for her they are university professors, lawyers and even a few journalists who actually did some research.
“She doesn’t know what she’s talking about.” She did know what she was talking about – maybe you are just irritated because you keep calling her “dumb” and maybe she is just playing the press for fools?
I will admit that my understanding of Paul Revere was “the poem” that we all have heard in our schooling but after this “little” incident and doing more reading I have learned more about the Revolutionary War and Paul Revere’s part in it.
June 6, 2011 at 3:46 pm
What, I’m supposed to support a comment she herself has disavowed? Exactly how would that make sense?
Then I withdraw the comment.
June 6, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Pam, read the letter. Revere was stopped by the British after he had warned Hancock and Adams. I’ve said HALF A DOZEN TIMES that she is technically correct about a portion of the story, but she answered the “gotcha” question as if the PURPOSE of Revere’s ride was to warn the BRITISH. Which makes not a lick of sense.
June 6, 2011 at 4:02 pm
– Exactly how would that make sense? –
Because it’s not unheard-of for people to agree with nutbag comments which are made to appeal to a political base, despite the fact that a politician is shamed into disavowing them. ”She was right” made no differentiation whatsoever between opposition to certain laws, and making some screw-loose comparison to ‘Jim Crow laws’. That’s how.
June 6, 2011 at 4:06 pm
My mistake. I’ve been aware of this ID story from long before anyone used “Jim Crow” to describe it. I focused on that part, and should have made my comment clear.
June 6, 2011 at 4:08 pm
What, I’m supposed to support a comment she herself has disavowed? Exactly how would that make sense
I will note, however, that you’re usually not shy or reticent in criticizing stupid comments from female politicians.
At least ones that have an “R” after their names.
I assumed – incorrectly – that your silence in this case was agreement.
I’ll also double note that the Republicans are trying to limit Democratic votes, not just black or Hispanic ones. Let’s be blunt: If black Americans were mostly Republican voters instead of mostly Democratic ones, these state GOPs wouldn’t be enacting these requirements.
But if they did, Democrats wouldn’t be complaining about it.
June 6, 2011 at 4:11 pm
I don’t know about all of these laws, but I’ll never understand the irrational opposition to have to present an ID at a voting place. It’s almost as if there’s some other reason for opposing it.
June 6, 2011 at 4:20 pm
- problem with showing ID -
Poorer people (who more often vote Democrat than Republican) tend to have more shakey legal situations than the more well off, and may not be thrilled to be confronted with a “show us your papers please” confrontation at the polling place.
I agree with Steve, this is an attempt to stifle Democratic turnout, period. It’s not race-based.
June 6, 2011 at 4:24 pm
I assumed – incorrectly – that your silence in this case was agreement.
By the time I got to the story, Wasserman-Schultz had already apologized. “I’m sorry” is a very important phrase. I take it very seriously, accept when it’s said with a dishonest smirk (see: Palin “apologizing” for hijacking Mitt’s announcement).
June 6, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Or it could be an attempt to prevent vote-fraud. But why acknowledge that when there are victims to be created?
June 6, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Those “victims” are real, and unless there’s proof of massive voter fraud by people who somehow managed to register to vote without proof of their identity, it’s nothing more than a “stop the poor from voting” gambit. How ’bout the GOP tries getting more lower-income voters, instead of trying to lock them out?
June 6, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Maybe we don’t believe that entire groups of people are incapable of acquiring a simple identification. Maybe liberals should look into their assumptions about people’s helplessness.
June 6, 2011 at 4:57 pm
You missed the point. It’s not about them not being able to produce it; it’s about being asked to by a government official. Some people – say, with an unpaid traffic warrant – are dodgy about being confronted like that. And those people are usually poor.
June 6, 2011 at 4:59 pm
”Government Official” = Old fart at the polling place. Uh, yeah.
June 6, 2011 at 5:12 pm
-tend to have more shakey legal situations than the more well off-
If any of these poorer people happen to be on any form of government-assistance that involves cashing a cheque, the endorsement requirements printed on it include a showing of positive ID… two forms, I believe. So if someone, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to produce verifiable proof of citizenship then that someone should be willing to accept not being allowed to cast a vote.
June 6, 2011 at 5:17 pm
You guys have clearly never been poor, and don’t understand the psychology and fears at play. It’s a world of constant crisis..I’m sure utterly unimaginable to those who’ve never experienced it. That’s just an observation, not a criticism. People who’ve never been there can’t be expected to know what it’s like.
June 6, 2011 at 5:21 pm
The push for ID checks at polling places is a waste of time and money, anyway. Most people whose lives are so jacked up they don’t have a valid state ID, are generally too jacked up to vote. This whole thing is stupid.
June 6, 2011 at 5:29 pm
^ Shows you entirely miss the point of requiring ID at polling places. It isn’t to discourage these people from casting their lawful vote, it is to prevent fraudulent votes being cast.
June 6, 2011 at 5:30 pm
That’s why liberals fight it so hard, and make uncoded racial appeals along the way.
June 6, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Uh, yeah, I get that you believe the official story. I do not. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud of any kind in this country. This is just politics from a bunch of morons who thinks it’s fun to pick on the poor.
June 6, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Liberals fight it because it’s anti-poor. It’s a nasty message from the GOP, and I’ll support any lib who exposes it for what it is: divisive grandstanding against the weakest segment of society.
June 6, 2011 at 5:40 pm
No evidence of voter-fraud that you choose to acknowledge. You’d rather just believe an anti-conservative fantasy. Luckily, most people are too smart to buy it.
June 6, 2011 at 5:44 pm
The phrase is “widespread voter fraud”. If you have the evidence, cough it up. Otherwise, this anti-poor legislation is nothing more than a meanspirited gimmick. Imagine that..the Republican Party not giving a damn about the poor. Shocking.
June 6, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Yes, dear, we’ll never be as effective at buying their votes as your guys. Tough luck for us. And I could also do without hearing the term ‘manufactured outrage’ from people who can raise such a blinding cloud of bullsh|t over a photo-ID. No one with an ounce of sense buys it. But keep bleating.
June 6, 2011 at 5:58 pm
There ain’t nothing ‘manufactured’ about my outrage. When I was young I was very poor, and spent some time without a standard ID because, A). I couldn’t track down my original birth certificate because, B). I was too wrecked emotionally to figure out how to do it.
I take this story very personally, and I would ask you to give me a huge break and drop it.
June 6, 2011 at 6:03 pm
No one’s stopping you from dropping it.
June 6, 2011 at 6:05 pm
The idea was that we both would, so I don’t have to keep reading about this thing.