For real?

That works only if you take part of her statement. It's not that (according to Palin) the British were being warned but that they were being warned against taking "our" guns.
"He who warned, uh, the ... the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells and, um, by making sure that as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free ... and we were gonna be armed."


There is
-"they" which is the British who are trying to take the arms and
- there is "we" who's arms are in question which can only be the colonists.
Clearly in her statement the "British" cannot be the colonists. So while your technicality is correct, it does not fix her basic error. She is not even technically correct.

 

Nor is Palin. She's not running for office.

Palin's error was just a misstatement in a speech where she was speaking off the cuff. There's no need to nitpick.

 

Except for the fact that she insists her statement was accurate. Her mistake has some interesting elements to it (for one, the fact that it was more than just a misstatement) but the truly intereting part about this incident is those (including now, Palin herself) that insist there was no mistake.

 

Great Question. And I Have Another!

:type:

I have an even better question...why doesn't Obama admit his errors? Very few pols admit their errors, which makes them even more arrogant. That old saying that to say you're sorry is a sign of weakness, is not Biblical.

Can you imagine the support this nation maight give to a politican that can come before them and admit they "just blew it!"? What a novel, refreshing act of public humility that would be!

Pastor Paul :type:

 

FWIW the day after the 57 states gaffe, Obama did admit he made a mistake. Generally you will find that even politicians will go ahead and admit they were wrong when they misspeak. On the bigger stuff they may never admit anything, but on the little and obvious stuff they grant the mistake if only not to look even more foolish.

Palin and many of her supporters in the other hand twsit logic into pretzels to even avoid admitting to some little misspeak. She can't even handle the usual politician evasion of being vague as possible to avoid saying anything meaningful.

 

Some people need to get a life.

 

No, on the other hand, did the President really think it was 2008 on his official visit to the UK?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-signs-Westminster-Abbey-guestbook-2008.html

HankD

 

Um, let's see...

She was elected the governor of Alaska
She was nominated to the VP spot on the GOP ticket last election cycle
She has since parlayed a rather mundane income bracket into a multi-million dollar venture
She has become a household name
She has the power to energize the conservative base (which is the biggest reason that liberal entities are so nervous about her)
And, yes, she sometimes mis-speaks, as do all candidates and office holders (aka "Mr. Tele-Prompter," otherwise known as the President of the United States).

Sounds really stupid to me... :thumbs:

Don't believe every smear piece that originates with the NYT or other liberal media outlet. They often search for the one snippet that will sound bite which may or may not be in context of the entire transcript of Palin's (or any other conservative candidate's) presentation.

About the Paul Revere thing... Has anyone actually taken a moment to get past the sound bite to see what Palin was trying to communicate (which had nothing to do with Revere, or with the faulty parsing of the media)? She was saying that Revere was sending a signal to the Brits that America was not going to back down -- he was engaged in courier activity that was intended to lead to the American ability to war against the most powerful nation on the earth in that era. She was not technically incorrect, but she did not repeat the childhood quip about Revere, which is why what she said so stands out.

 

And, normally, a typo would not be a big deal. However, when you do so in the context of calling somebody else stupid, that tends to make it a much more glaring error.

I taught history at both the high school and college levels for several years. If somebody in my class gave that explanation, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Evidently, neither would other historians, as several have come out in her defense:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/

 

Not to derail, but so far I really like what I see from Herman Cain.

http://www.hermancain.com/

 

"Leader" of what? She's not running for anything.

I read them. Your meaning was clear.

 

So far, the only thing I don't like about Cain is that he won't go after the Fed. I like the fact that he's in favor of the fair tax.

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...alin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

 

You cited people who did...

 

Of Course You Didn't Call Her Stupid!

However, your post was meant to shine a light on her so called error, and in so doing, I can see (by reading between the lines) that you did intend to infer that she wasn't too bright, when itcomes to history!