The sentence is gibberish.
That’s what’s wrong with it.
Basically, what you’re saying is something like “well, we can really rip apart what Palin says, tear it down to words or very short phrases, add some more words, leave a couple words out, and come up with a historically accurate sentence. That’s what Palin meant to say, and what she meant to say was historically accurate.”
You didn’t question this account of what she said, so let’s just assume it’s ok.
“warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
1) “Revere warned ... by ringing those bells.” 2)
“to send those warning shots” 3) And the fact that we’re looking at this gibberish sentence so closely just to figure out what it is that she’s trying to say. Not to determine whether what she’s saying is true or not, just to figure out what she’s trying to say. The criticism here isn’t “Palin doesn’t know her history”, the criticism is “Palin makes no sense”.
You actually can strengthen up your own argument by mentioning that some scholars do believe that warning shots were fired.
I’m not arguing this is a big deal, and I didn’t really read the stories about what Palin intially said, I started paying attention to the “critics are wrong” stories. It may very well be that the critics were attacking the wrong aspects of the sentence, perhaps by making a story out of it in the first place.
I guess “Palin says something that makes no sense” is not a news story, but “Palin gets Paul Revere facts wrong” is a story?
It’s just something you don’t really want to be talking about any more.
Victory! Read all about how we made a historically accurate sentence out of Palin’s gibberish. You kinda have to repeat the gibberish over and over every time you want to point out how each nugget of factishness is related in some way to something that did happen. That’s not necessarily a good thing for Palin.
Funny the best presidents I can think of in my lifetime have all been called stupid or ignorant simply because of the way they talk... i.e. talking gibberish or cant talk etc... and our current president is just an articulate talking figurehead reading what his controllers are putting up on the teleprompter. I will take Gibberish from now on thanks! If she runs (which I personally believe she will) she has our two votes.
Funny the best presidents I can think of in my lifetime have all been called stupid or ignorant simply because of the way they talk... i.e. talking gibberish or cant talk etc... and our current president is just an articulate talking figurehead reading what his controllers are putting up on the teleprompter. I will take Gibberish from now on thanks! If she runs (which I personally believe she will) she has our two votes.
"He who warned uh the, the British that they weren’t gonna to be takin away our arms uh by ringin those bells and and um making sure as he’s ridin his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that uh we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free."
I keep picturing Revere riding with one hand firing into the night sky, and one hand tirelessly ringing some little bells. lol
Look, it's a commonplace that people don't actually speak in complete sentences all the time.
Had this been a prepared speech, it would have been rightly criticized for sloppiness.In the event, critics of Palin's response are exactly like the grammar police who nitpick on FR from time to time.
You damn blue blood old money elitists and your stupid syntax! That’s not how we talk in real America!
You sure spout a lot of words -
And yet - in not one case - did you present where she was facually inaccurate.
You also did not indicate what personal research you have done on the topic.
I won’t be responding to more of your inane posts - you have demonstrated you have no case - just blather. Go troll somwewhere else.
That is not the King's English!!!
CA....
That is not the King's English!!!
CA....
That is not the King's English!!!
CA....
That is not the King's English!!!
CA....
Things spoken and things written are two different animals. If she wrote this, it would be difficult to read. But since this was spoken, it makes sense.
Her account, and historical point to be made, are correct. The sentence is pretty easy to decipher no matter the phrasing used.
Now if she said Revere was a woman who was riding in a car and blew the horn to warn the Indians, that would be historically inaccurate.