Palin Wants Us To Remember The Past

Palin is all-American and married to a native American. Unlike the occupant of the White House, she wants us to remember and respect the history of the US.

Palin said in a blog post on her website Tuesday that she is touring historical sites because “it’s so important for Americans to learn about our past so we can clearly see our way forward in challenging times.”

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/

During the 2008 election campaign, Obama announced at least 10,000 times that America needs to change. His wife believes that America never did anything to be proud of prior to November, 2008. His pastor believes that America should be damned by God.

 

 

 

 

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

165 Responses to Palin Wants Us To Remember The Past

  1. Latitude says:

    but he did tour all 57 muslim states……….

  2. Ira says:

    very off topic, but you MUST read this, and pay close attention to the last paragraph:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110530/sc_nm/us_climate_greenland
    me? I’m almost speechless.

    • Latitude says:

      rotfl
      It not only happened before, it was a lot worse…
      …but if it happens again, we did it

      Ira, I can’t get anyone to explain how the temperature rise from 1700-1800 was bigger and faster than the rise from 1900-2000…………

    • P.J. says:

      They couldn’t help themselves!

  3. Deadman says:

    “Scientists fear that the 21st century warming is caused by climate change”!
    Change brings change! Yep, like I said earlier, human stupidity is caused by human stupidity, and the declining standards of our education system are caused by the declining standards of our education system.
    I fear that modern scientific incompetence is caused by modern scientific incompetence.

  4. Tony Duncan says:

    I forget did Bachman advise her to visit where the revolution started in NH or MA?

  5. Latitude says:

    I think it’s hysterical that the media is in a frenzy because she won’t give them her schedule….
    …so they can tell the liberal rent-a-thugs where her stops are.

    If she’s such a non-player, why are they paying so much attention?

    …..I really hope O’bama runs on the hopey changy thing again…………

    • Dave G says:

      They’re petrified and I love it!!! now that her e-mails are being released while governor, the left will be drooling trying to find something LOL

  6. Luke of the D says:

    I just wish she’d jump off the Republican ticket and run Tea Party… although she most definitely wouldn’t win. Not in our retarded two-party country. Our founding fathers didn’t want the party system (at least not all of them) but it happened anyway… and now we’re so far down (too big to fail!) that we can’t escape. But I do like the Tea Party (at least the real TP and not what the media likes to say)… States rights, less power to the Feds, greater voice of the people with less socialist agenda and more democratic power… at least that’s how I originally saw it when it first began.

  7. slimething says:

    Obama is already running on the ‘don’t change horses in midstream’ thing.

    2011 is the summer of recovery after all.

  8. Sean Ogilvie says:

    Whenever I travel I love to go to historic places. It drove my now ex-girlfriend crazy (I wonder why we broke up). I grew up in NY so I’ve visited the Statue of Liberty several times but never Ellis Island. 3 of my grand parents visited it about 110 years ago. Scouting out a trip I always check out the historical sites as my dad did when I was a kid. He was a school teacher and we drove for 3 weeks every summer. I was in Grand Junction Colorado when we landed and walked on the moon. We stopped early so we could watch it. The Holiday Inn pool was full when Armstrong stepped foot on the moon. Those people missed history. I was captivated. It inspired me to become a banker (not really).

    Sarah is vacationing with the kids because she can. She is also tweaking the news hounds because she can. In my opinion she isn’t running for President but she is having a blast. This is “The Revenge of Sarah Palin”.

    Sorry for the nostalgia

  9. Mike Davis says:

    I am also interested in American History and retraced the drive described in Thunder Road.

    The roads are real.
    I even visited where Custer got his!

  10. AndyW says:

    Excellent she is now getting up to speed on US history by visiting historical sites. Pershaps she can the go on to learning geography and perhaps even one day politics.

    😀

    Andy

    • And maybe one day Obama will learn to be an American.

    • Sean Ogilvie says:

      So who are the idiots AndyW? Her or those that think she actually said “I can see Russia from my house”?

      • PhilJourdan says:

        I vote the latter! As a close runner up, I nominate the Slate for slamming her for saying the Boston Tea Party was in 1773!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Probably the same ones that keep insisting Gore said he invented the internet.
        of course Palin was laughably implying that her proximity to Alaska gave her some mystical understanding of foreign affairs, whereas Gore actually was involved with supporting technological development that at least had something to do with the internet.

      • glacierman says:

        Aren’t they the same ones that think Sarah Palin stars in NBCs 3o Rock?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        and he did have at least SOMETHING to do with it, as I explained in my comment.

        from Snopes

        Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he “invented” the Internet.
        Status: False.
        Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he “invented” the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The “Al Gore said he ‘invented’ the Internet” put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s “Late Edition” program on 9 March 1999.

      • glacierman says:

        Manhattan is under water.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Galcierman,

        And we KNOW who the people spreading that crazy lie are!

        • Hansen is the person spreading the story that Manhattan is going to drown, and anyone who doesn’t recognize that is a complete moron. Especially one who bought the book.

          I hope your thought process isn’t as broken as you pretend it to be.

      • glacierman says:

        I’m going to make some popcorn.

      • AndyW says:

        Her lack of knowledge about the world is well known. She’s good at flying the flag and talking about values, but that’s not enough experience to be a good President.

        Andy

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,
        I am not sure, but I THINK it means – Her lack of knowledge about the world is well known. She’s good at flying the flag and talking about values, but that’s not enough experience to be a good President.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        just got this sent to me.

        you would think that someone who wants to be taken seriously would know SOMETHING about American history, when she is on a A Great American History Tour.

        Andy, I am waiting with baited breath for the explanations about this one.

  11. AndyW says:

    PS You can probably tell I am not a huge Palin fan. I think the USA needs someone up for the job in hand, and I think she was out of her depth even as a running mate in the last election. She’s good at soundbites, but is that enough for the job, no I don’t think so.

    Andy

    • And perhaps you have no idea what you are talking about.

    • DEEBEE says:

      ANdy, instead of thoyghtless opinions, try to give some thoughtful ones. Otherwise it just seems like projection on your part.

      • AndyW says:

        Tell me how my opinions are thoughtless.

        Go on.

        After that you can explain what you meant by projection in regards to what I said, because it seems like the wrong word to use in this case.

        Andy

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Andy,

        Don’t let Steve hurt your feelings. he has a compulsion to call any reasonable response thoughtless.

    • Dave G says:

      Gee Andy, aren’t we like 14 tril in debt, do you run your household like this?

    • Russ says:

      You are probably right Andy, she may turn out to be another Gillard, or Cameron or in your case a Christie for you, for the latest. But hey,that’s my opinion on it. But hey,who knows, she may bring the end to never ending Eco Bullshit.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Russ,

        all the people you mention are an order of magnitude more competent than Palin. See my above posted video. The word “clueless” just jumps into your mind when hearing this sort of response from her

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Tony – I probably know more about American history than 99% of Americans do. But I do not know it all. She got one wrong and you crucify her – yet your “mentioned” people are orders of magnitude better when their boners are as bad or worse?

        She probably knows more than 90% of the American people – at least she knows when the Boston tea Party was – most progressives are also clueless on that (as is Obama).

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Phil,

        She doesn’t know what Paul Revere did???? what the heck was she doing in 4rth grade? She is on a tour ABOUT American History. and she can’t even be bothered to refresh her memory about the most basic events that every schoolchild knows. “One if by land two if by sea”, that is kind of basic don’t you think. The same with Bachman not knowing Concord NH was not the battle of Lexington. If it was an isolated instance I would agree with you, all politicians get raked over the coals for “gaffs”, but this one is incredible, as is her sing-songy laugh trying to blow it off.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        pretty sure it was the imaginary one where you still have Hansen saying Manhattan is under water by 2008.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        Whoops. Did I miss something? are you now saying tha HAnsen DIDN ‘T say manhattan would be underwater by 2008. if, So I apologize for my last comment and will stop calling you a liar!

      • Russ says:

        Tony, the only thing imaginary here is where you imagine Hansen not saying Manhattan will be under water by 2008. And you still post that here and want people to take you people seriously! No wonder your crusade is failing when people can see for themselves what is going on. you people were all content when you had a consensus and was flaunting it to get your idea \ agenda pushed through. But it seems after your consensus lost it’s momentum, what do your types do, Paint the public as dumb and don’t understand the science to still push your agenda through. BOY you can’t have it both ways and you jackasses have been having a field day with it. It will come to an end, your gravy train is ending, so deal with it like everyone else has to in the real world. Or maybe I should say suck it up princess.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Russ,

        Well, then you must have some documentation where Hansen actually says Manhattan will be underwater by 2008. Boy is Steve going to be embarrassed that YOU unearthed this info when he has been unable to for the last year.

        All Steve has been able to do is call me names and on one post censor my comments. OH and he has also managed to respond to my comments that are a list of facts that completely support my claim by sputtering that I have no facts to back up my claim, or just typing the letter Z repeatedly, whatever that means.

      • Russ says:

        HAHAHA, still in denial and you call us deniers! Sooner or later you will be sucking it up!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Russ,
        just a simple request.
        Provide some documentation where Hansen says Manhattan will be underwater by 2008?
        Quick, before Steve censors me again for telling the truth.
        Steve has never provided ANY information to contradict what I have posted repeatedly, so I am hoping that you actually have something.
        In which case I will apologize to both you and Steve

        • You are a dishonest charlatan – and a moron. Do you think that repeating the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over again changes anything?

          While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “*The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water*. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

          And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

          *Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”*

          Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

          *When did he say this will happen?*

          Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

          *Does he still believe these things?*

          Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.

      • Russ says:

        Like I said before, you can’t still see the forest for the trees in front of you. You truly have the blinders on. And don’t try spinning this as he said she said against Steve or any one else of some kind. I see what you are doing here and other people can see this for what it is, So you can suck it up now princess, because sooner or later you will anyway.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Russ,

        I’m sorry maybe you missed my request. just show me ANY documentation where Hansen says Manhattan will be underwater by 2008.
        Or you can just admit that he DIDN’T say it, and help me to get Steve to be honest about this very simple relatively unimportant fact.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        the only crap being repeated over and over again is this fraudulent quote. You keep posting it and you NEVER post that the author has completely disavowed it and has explained that it was off the top of his head, was 13 years AFTER the actual quote and is WRONG! You do not explain that the article this is from highlights the book where the ACTUAL, and correct quote is, and that that quote specifically says 2030, NOT 2008 and also specifically mandates a doubling of CO2 by then. the book is POSTED On the article headline, has numerous references in the article, has all the publication data and has a LINK to when’re you can buy it. The book was written before the article and the article is clearly promoting the book.

        you have never provided any evidence to refute any of these claims, yet you continue to use the misquote. and even that is is 2nd hand.
        And then you have the cajones to call me a charlatan and moron. You are lucky I am a patient man and never tire of your constant obfuscation regarding this particular, I say again, relatively unimportant issue.
        as I have said dozens of times, you are free to call Hansen any names you want, but ONLY with regards to things he actually says.

        • The West Side Highway is 12 feet above sea level. It will remain above sea level for thousands of years. Hansen’ made a completely indefensible prediction and you get hysterical over and over again because you think the Salon author got the date wrong by twenty years. Your protestations are just pathetic.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        VERY good point. 12 feet above sea level. that is an actual fact.
        You are free to ridicule Hansen for saying it will be underwater by 2030.
        All you need to do is say you were wrong for continuing to ridicule him for saying it was 2008 once you found out the Salon quote was wrong. no big deal. and you will never have to deal with this issue again.
        but as long as you or others continue to claim he said something he never said, I will correct you and let any others reading this know the truth, and you will keep calling me names or censoring me. It is your blog, do you want to keep going through this every time you bring up Manhattan under water? As I said I am a patient man.

    • Russ says:

      Keep whining about it, because it won’t get you any farther than you are right now. You don’t even see that do you?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Russ,

        it is really very simple. Either provide ANY documentation or admit that it is not true. Nothing whinny there, just backing you against the wall where you either have to lie or tell the truth. Steve was unable to do either so he censored me. His blog, he can do what he wants.

      • Russ says:

        See above. And above that, and above that. Cry and whine all you want, it won’t help you. You believe what you want to believe and good for you, I’m not going to convince you other wise because you have that freedom to believe what you want. But you are not convincing anyone else here but those who are already of your like mindedness who may be visiting here. I hope it works out for you as long as it don’t involve anyone else but your own kind. So maybe you should create your own web site where you can preach what you want. But I have a feeling you may have already tried that and it didn’t work out for you, so here you are trolling like you would.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Russ,

        still waiting for you to provide ANY instance where Hansen says Manhattan underwater by 2008. Why do you keep avoiding that?

        since I am obviously wrong, you should at least give me the opportunity of seeing the truth by showing it to me.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        Russ is ignoring my request. That is not spam is it just an admission that he can’t provide any support to his claim that I am wrong.

      • Russ says:

        Well I guess he brought this upon himself. All I know and I have tried to voice my opinion on real climate and it never seen the light of day. At least Steve let this conversation go as long as it did, and that is more than I can say for the warmist sites. But they can’t have that kind of talk on it on their sites, it’s sacrilege, it may hurt someone’s feelings, or it may curve someone’s beliefs there. So they censor that kind of post and keep their own kind in a bubble. But at least Tony has that freedom here to voice his opinions to a point, unlike over there.

      • Russ says:

        AHH, I see Steve still let you have your say. I’m not ignoring your request, because no matter what your mind is already made up.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Russ,

        so why are you avoiding the issue.
        I repeat either show me some documentation that has hansen saying manhattan would be underwater by 2008 or admit he never said it. As I have pointed out dozens of times now, the only thing that Steve ever posts is the Salon article which has been proven to be wrong, and both the interviewer (who was NOT Hansen) and Hansen are very clear he never said it.
        So the only options are that he never said it, or there is another source that has him saying it.
        Please either provide that source or admit he never said it.

        • Mahanattan will not be underwater anytime in the next 1000 years. Hansen has no idea what he is talking about, and you are quibbling endlessly over whether or not Reiss heard the exact date correctly. You are accomplishing nothing other than convincing people that you are a moron.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Russ,

        my mind is NOT made up. All you have to do is provide ANY evidence that Hansen said Manhattan will be underwater by 2008. the salon article is NOT evidence because it has been proven wrong.
        I have been shown to be wrong on this blog a few times and I have admitted it when I was shown compelling evidence. I am not even asking for compelling evidence, i just won’t accept fraudulent evidence.

      • Russ says:

        Why are you?

      • Russ says:

        And yes your mind is already made up,other wise you wouldn’t be here constantly on this very subject.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Russ,

        let’s try an experiment. you provide me with ANY documentation that shows Hansen saying Manhattan will be underwater by 2008 (that has not been shown to be fraudulent) and you will find out.
        And except for very rare occasions it is Steve that brings the issue up, not me. And when it IS me that brings it up, I always just ask for some evidence that Hansen said this. I have done so about ten times in just this post and have yet to have anyone provide any.
        Isn’t that odd? here I am the one that is wrong, and yet I present actual facts to support my position. and the people who ARE right are unable to present any facts to support theirs? But it does fit in well with the Palin universe, so maybe that is the connection.

      • Russ says:

        Let’s try a different experiment. You go and make your own web site and see how that works out. Because I don’t know how anyone can be that blinded with out being paid or is looking after his or her own personal interests, or whatever that may be. And I am being as politically correct as I can here. I don’t often post here but I visit this site allot. And in most cases 99.9% of the time, when I see your name, it is always the same. So you tell me who has the problem. Because it isn’t Steve, and I’m not the only one that see this.

      • Russ says:

        And I don’t live in the US, nor am I a citizen of the US, so I don’t know where you are going with the Palin universe thing. Talk about being paranoid or conspiracy theories, You take the cake on that now, and see above about who has a problem again.

      • Russ says:

        And don’t try to be a smart-ass by stating what the title of this story is about, because that was never the topic when our discussion started.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        if the date is just quibbling, and you can present absolutely NO evidence to show that he said it would happen in 2008 without a doubling of CO2, then why can’t you just admit that he never said it, retract all the times you DID accuse him of saying it and continue attacking him for the things he does say.
        then you never have to worry about me not letting go of the issue
        That is the only honest response I can see, yet you refuse to do so. So I continue to point out to people the truth as long as you continue to promote an untruth.

        Russ continues to avoid providing any evidence that contradicts my point, as well. If I am convincing people I am a moron for not letting you repeat falsehoods that is beyond my control. You can either ignore my corrections or censor me again. it is your blog.

        • You are an obsessive compulsive loon. Hansen was wrong. No one cares whether you think he was wrong by 3000 years or only 2980 years. What part of that isn’t clear to you?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        EXACTLY. So why can’t you admit that he never said 2008?
        Since he is completely wrong no matter what the date, why lie about something that is meaningless?
        What is the point of continuing to bring up something that isn’t true, when I will keep pointing out the facts.
        I have said over and over again that I will stop correcting you when you stop repeating a proven misquote from a second had quote that has been retracted!

        • Tony, you have made it abundantly clear that you believe Reiss had the dates wrong by a decade or two. You have repeated that statement over 100 times here. What year do you believe Hansen predicted Manhattan will drown? Do you believe he was off by 3,000 years, or just 2,980?

          I’m not sure what kind of psychotic drugs you are on, but I had nothing to do with the original interview, the second interview, or the Salon article. Take this up with Salon, if you feel like your life depends on getting it resolved.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,
        I have not made any BELIEF of mine abundantly clear. I have made the FACTS abundantly clear. I have repeatedly asked you and others to provide ANYTHING that contradicts those facts, and nobody does.

        What I believe is totally irrelevant. the only relevant issue is your promoting something that is not true. As soon as you stop doing that there is no issue, and I will not repeat the facts for 101st time.
        you made dozens of posts ridiculing Hansen for something he did not say. All you have to do is acknowledge he did not say it and ridicule him for what he clearly unequivocally is documented as saying.

        As I said I am a patient person

        • The fact is that Hansen made a spectacularly ridiculous forecast with the sole intent to alarm people, and you are determined to put up a smokescreen.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        Just admit you were wrong about the Hansen quote, and this will stop. OR provide ANY information that indicates that he actually has said this ANYWHERE at ANYTIME!

        A smokescreen is a technique to hide the facts from people. All I am doing is making sure you do not get away with promoting a lie. Kind of the opposite of a smokescreen.

        as I said I am patient

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        you are right. No one else would keep pointing out your promoting a lie over and over again, when you and all your fellow commenters refuse to admit it. or refuse to give ANY information that indicates it isn’t a lie.

        Don’t know if I have mentioned this, but I am patient.

  12. Another Ian says:

    Don’t I remember that Harry Truman reckoned that

    “The only thing you don’t know about people is the history you haven’t read”?

  13. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    June 1, 2011 at 1:40 am

    I forget – was that a slap at the ignoramuses who thought the Boston tea Party was in 1776?

  14. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    June 1, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    As a governor of a border state – she was rightly implying she was more savvy in foreign affairs than either Biden or Obama. Gore claimed credit for “creating” the Internet, even though its creation predated his tenure. I guess we know who are the fools and where are the facts.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Phil,

      a BORDER state with Russia??? Oh yeah, I guess she had to deal with all those immigrants and the massive trade and diplomatic missions that went back and forth from the Governor’s mansion and the Kamtchatka chamber of Commerce.

      • Border states deal with all kinds of border issues. Intelligent people are aware of the fact that trade is not the only one.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        and exactly what “border issues” did Palin deal with in her half term as governor. I don’t remember her, or anyone detailing the important questions facing russia and Alaska that Palin had to apply her foreign affairs expertise to.
        I would wager that Alaska has more “border issues” with Mexico than Alaska.

        • Governors do not do the work of the State Department. As Governor of Alaska, she dealt with the large military presence dedicated to securing the borders.

      • Jimash says:

        Fishing rights.

        Overflights by bombers.

        Fairly substantive issues.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Jimash,

      I apologize, but I was unable to make out the text on those links that showed Palin’s crucial negotiations on these issues.

  15. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    June 1, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Now you are just being stupid. Do we have an immigrant problem on the CANADIAN border? But by your logic, we have no border with Canada since we have no immigrant problem.

    And Alaska DOES border Russia due to the Territorial claims by both countries extending 200 miles off shore (since the closest points are only 2.4 miles, that is well within the 400 that the total of both nations could claim). So while Obama had a lot of “Diplomatic” relations with Toledo while living in Chicago – that is not a foreign country (But you can claim it is).

  16. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    June 1, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    Steve,

    and exactly what “border issues” did Palin deal with in her half term as governor.

    What Border issues did Biden and Obama deal with in their terms of the executive mansion? Oh, wait, silly me. Neither has ever run anything larger than a lemonade stand before!

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Actually I think they were in a organization called the senate where they actually discussed issues related to foreign affairs.

      but I tell you what, if Palin puts this guy on the ticket fro VP, I might just vote for her.
      http://www.dogwork.com/sdj8/

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Yea, the Senate discusses a lot – and has no clue. Again, if you want to rule by committee – elect a senator. If you want an executive who can run things – get some one with experience – not a senator.

        But you are wrong. Being a senator is not the same as serving in the senate. Obama was indeed a senator. He did not serve in the senate. he was too busy running for president.

  17. Latitude says:

    First, Palin actually said that you can see Russia from parts of Alaska.
    Which is 100% true.
    To show the total ignorance of the media and liberals that believe the media…..
    It was Tina Kay that said “you can see Alaska from my house”

    Palin has had to deal with huge issues with Russia, ever since Clinton readjusted the borders and gave Russia several islands back. Thus, you can see Russia from parts of Alaska now.
    Russia is trying to make claim to Alaskan oil now. Technology has advanced to where they can drill sideways. Having those islands back in Russian territory puts Russia in a position to drill in one of the largest oil reserves in the world. A reserve we can’t drill in because of our stupid environmental regulations, but Russia can.

    No different than paying Brazil to drill for oil deeper and more dangerous than we can, where we have no control
    Or Cuba selling drilling rights to China in the 90 mile straight between Cuba and Key West, where because of our stupid environmental regulations we can’t drill. But where our lack of agreements with Cuba mean that if any thing happens, we can’t even go there and fix it.

    We have to be the most stupid advanced society on the face of this planet.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Latitude,

      Yes, Tina Fey DID say that. And yes it is possible to see a couple of extremely isolated parts of Russia from a couple of extremely isolated parts of Alaska.

      You present some issues that are relevant to foreign affairs. What in fact did Palin have to do with any of them? Why did she mot mention the hard-nosed negotiations she had with those weaselly sideways-america-oil-stealing ruskies?
      Why has she not mentioned any of the other “huge” issues? maybe she has gone into these details burnishing her foreign affairs credentials and the media just ignored her? Since the media obviously has no interest in her that must be the case.

      • Latitude says:

        I wouldn’t expect the names Gazprom or Salazar to mean anything to someone like you……
        …the gets their information spoon fed to them

      • Tony Duncan says:

        latitude,

        More the reason to provide me with those sources that show how involved Palin was in these crucial foreign policy issues, since I only frequent leftist sites for information, like Steve’s blog., Human Events, Commentary, etc.
        Open my mind a little.

      • Latitude says:

        Bing and Google will work, I know you know how to use them……

      • Latitude says:

        BTW, I know you’re a mess, but where did you get that I said ‘you’ only frequent leftest sites?
        If someone only frequented leftist sites they wouldn’t even know about all the lies Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, etc have said……….

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Latitude, I just went through two pages of Google. “Palin, foreign policy experience” got nothing other than people saying that she has none, or people saying because she lived in Alaska she was near Russia and therefore MUST have an understanding of foreign policy.
        Please provide me with something, since google must have censored that issue.
        I think this post takes the record off the most times I have asked people to provide me with information and had so many responses and NONE actually provided any information. I congratulate you!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        latitude,

        What does the word “spoonfed mean in your universe?”

  18. Ed Darrell says:

    His wife believes that America never did anything to be proud of prior to November, 2008. His pastor believes that America should be damned by God.

    You never were a Boy Scout, I take it.

    Still, you could work to follow the first point of the Scout Law. It’s a great aid to understanding, and getting people to work for serious, workable solutions to difficult problems.

    Neither of those sentences is correct as you cast them.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Ed:
      Both of those claims are based on statements by those people! Michelle actually said that in 2008 and the pastor repeatedly made sermons about Goddamn America. The videos were available of the pastor during the primary and Michelle after the election.

  19. Latitude says:

    you’re a mess…….but not that stupid
    why would you look for words that I did not use

  20. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    June 4, 2011 at 1:40 am

    Tony, not reading poetry apparently. I was aware that Revere never completed the ride. I was not aware of his actions upon capture. Apparently Palin was – which means she knows more than I (and you too apparently).

    So the Boston Tea party was in 1776 and Revere did not tell the brits that the Americans were ready for them? The egg yolks are on you.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Phil,

      You have to listen to what Palin ACTUALLY said. She merrily talks about ringing bells and sending warning shots to the British. Paul Revere’s ride was specifically to warn the REBELS and was done so without ringing bells and was specifically a clandestine ride . He was CAUGHT by the british AFTER he warned Hancock, , his mission had been accomplished, and was trying to intimidate British soldiers, by exaggerating the strength and actions of the rebels.
      I just read that Palin supporters are trying to rewrite wikipedia CITING Palin as an EXPERT source. That is both hysterical and scary

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Try again Tony! I already admitted I was wrong – time for you to man up as well. Palin was right. And since she knows more than all but a few historians, that makes her more of an expert than the authors (William Connolly for one) of Wikipedia.

        BTW – his mission was more than just the warning of one man. But no one is faulting him for getting captured. Talk about revisionists!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Phil,

        What exactly was Palin right about? The ringing of the bells or the firing of the shots or both?
        Of course Since Palin is such a good conservative, maybe she has information that Revere was REALLY a british Patriot, and WAS warning the British about those commie rebels, trying to undermine society with their radical ideas against monarchy.

        read the Forbes piece, unless you don’t believe anything from those leftist sources

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Here’s the problem – she is right and the detractors are wrong – bottom line! So clowns like Ungar can try to spin it anyway they want, but Palin proves once again, she knows more than the so called “smartest people in the world”.

        I really do not care how her supporters spin it. Not hard to spin when you are right. Ever hear of righteous indignation? That is when you are right, but someone tells you are wrong. And you have proof the boobs are full of it!

        Guess what? The boobs are full of it! And it is not facts they are full of – just bullsh*t.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Phil,

        before I write you off an being insane. PLEASE tell me what Palin said in her wonderful speech that was correct. Was Revere ringing bells and/or firing shots to warn the British?
        Or did the LSM edit her video to make her look like an idiot?
        what in Unger’s article is wrong?

        OOPS. Sorry, silly me. I forgot I was on Steve’s blog and on issues like these no one ever actually answers questions. they just tell me I am a moron (or maroon, when in a better frame of mind)

  21. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    June 6, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    She was right about pretty much all of it. Revere did tell the British off. You seem to be trying to do a Tina Fey on Palin. Good luck with that! But then that will be your own downfall as you clearly are just wanting to trash her regardless of what she says. When the truth is she is a very smart cookie (smarter than Obama and his idiot stooge side kick).

  22. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    June 6, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    hehehe – You are not even good at obfuscation! But go ahead and swing for the big wiff by trying to put words into my mouth. Ungar did not even do that. Apaprently you did not read his article very well did you? Or you would not be making these assinine assertions and trying to cow me with threats of incivility!

    Late night for you? You are usually not this wrong or rabidly anti anything. Guess someone stepped on your ego.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Phil,

      Wow, you ANSWERED my questions after I specifically said you wouldn’t.
      No wait, you did exactly as I said and just ignored them and then called me names.
      Although I take back the threat to consider you an idiot. You are certainly not one
      I read the Ungar article twice, before you posted this, and it is very clear that Palin said nothing accurate in her giddy little speech. Even if you are referring to when Revere was captured and had a gun to his head, and exaggerated the size and intentions of the militia. Palin didn’t say anything about that…in her giddy little speech. Of course in palin’s universe I would think him telling them ANYTHING would brand him as a traitor.

      so once again in Palin’s…giddy little speech,
      ” he who…. uh uh…warned the British that they weren’t gonna be taken away our arms… uh, by ringing those bells, and um ,making sure as he’s riding his HORSE THROUGH TOWN* (giggle), to send those warning shots, and bells, that uh, we were gonna be secure, and we were gonna be free.

      please tell me what is accurate in that quote. Notice she says she warned the British “BY” ringing those bells and firing those shots.
      *palin’s emphasis

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Called you names? Please show me where? I guess you are delusional (not a name, just a description of you reading something that is not there).

        I answered your question. Was it not clear enough? Ungar said NOTHING about Palin – he was commenting on her supporters!

        Please stop being so paranoid (again not a name, just a description of your appearance that you are presenting here). And READ YOUR LINK. Then ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTIONS – as they are irrelevant and a bit “black helicopterish”.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Phil,

        I JUST gave you her EXACT quote. Asking you to tell me what is accurate about the quote is “Black helicopterish?

        I ask you once again, WHAT is accurate in her quote?

        and you are right you did not call me names. You said I was making asinine assertions, when what I was saying is that her quote is just flat out wrong, and as yet, you have not provided me with any evidence that it was not. In my view making assertions that fit the facts is not asinine.
        I am not as generous as Ungar. He says she was JUST at a talk where the history had been explained to her and it was probably her desire to spread her second amendment message that caused her to mish mash Israel Bissell and Paul Revere. I think it more likely that she was NOT really paying attention and when thrown into the headlights her deer response just popped out mixing them up.
        But that is besides the point. The point is she was wrong, unless you can provide information indicating Revere fired shots and rang bells, in which case I will investigate and if she was right I will apologize.

  23. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    June 6, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    “just gave”? You accused me of name calling. You then go off and decide I am some type of whacko for calling you names. None of which are printed on this page. You refuse to read the article. All are you choices, but do not tar me with your brush. You are the one going off the deep end. I merely commented on a link YOU POSTED (but apprently did not read).

    You really need to get some rest – or quit drunk blogging. You are not making any sense.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Phil,

      I acknowledge that you did not call me names. You are right about that. i am wrong. I apologize. i misread what you wrote, and I am wrong. You did NOt call me names. I said that in the above comment.

      I have read the article THREE times now and made references to information in the article.

      I am not sure what does not make sense about asking you what was accurate in Palin’s…giddy… quote.

      You have stated that she was right and all the pundits laughing at her are wrong. at least that is how I interpret what you wrote above
      “Here’s the problem – she is right and the detractors are wrong – bottom line! So clowns like Ungar can try to spin it anyway they want, but Palin proves once again, she knows more than the so called “smartest people in the world”.

      I have been asking you to explain to me what is right about Palin’s quote. I even transcribed it myself, so that I would not waste your time.
      You have yet to answer or supply any information that lends support to the claim that Palin was right. You have so far said my remarks are “asinine” “black helicopterish”, “paranoid”, “revisionist” and “wanting to trash her regardless of what she says”

      All I am doing is asking you to supply me with ANYTHING that supports her quote. the one she ACTUALLY said. the one where I provided the transcription for you. As I said above the ONLY information I have seen is that a DIFFERENT person, did something like that and it was on a different date.

      you can take my accusation of you calling me names and make that the issue, but since i retracted it immediately, and have repeatedly acknowledged that, it seems like a silly thing to use to avoid answering my question and supplying information that contradicts my assertion that her quote is wrong.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Um, no again Tony. I called your assertions assinine, not all your statements. And that was directed to one response – not all of them, I called your accusations paranoid, not your statements. I did call your version revisionist (of Paul’s mission) as it does not jibe with any known recounting of the episode. And “black helicopterish”? I would suspect that anyone that takes a single statement and makes it an universal law covering all material (when anyone reading the thread can clearly see it was unidirectional)……well perhaps “black helicopterish” was a bit harsh. Maybe as I stated originally, you just had a bad night and want to make absolutes of anything I write.

        In which case I really cannot continue this as it is a waste of time for me to pen a statement only to have you make a blanket condemnation out of it.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Phil,

        As you say nothing specific to connect what any of the above is talking about I find it hard to respond. WHAT was my asinine assertion? Which assertion are you saying is wrong? What accusations did I make? What is it about my version of Paul Revere’s ride is revisionist? since I have taken it from a number of different sites that all say the same thing, I find it hard to accept that it does not jibe with any known recounting.
        Here you bring up all these general points that may have substance and then you say you will not respond because it is a waste of time. We are FINALLY making progress!

        Oh, but to get back to the ACTUAL point. my question is what is accurate in Sarah Palin’s quote? if the answer is “nothing” then you are right it is a waste of time to continue, since we are in agreement. of course you did say PALIN is right and her detractors are wrong. So that implies that these detractors are also making revisionist history that does not jibe with any known recounting.

  24. Latitude says:

    I’m curious….
    With all the things that Obama, Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Frank, Rangel, and on and on, have said….
    ….who cares about Palin?
    Why is something Palin said so important, when we have elected politicians in office running this country right now, that have not just gotten their facts mixed up….
    …but flat out lied

    • Tony Duncan says:

      latitude,

      no problem there. List them and make your points.
      Just don’t ignore when Palin, who may be running for president, says something that is blatantly historical fantasy.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, it isn’t ignored, but noted about how it compares to inventing live fire while either flying in a helicopter or landing. When I see the media or the left making such a big thing out of the lies told by their candidates I’ll start noted what they have to say about the right’s candidates, until then their hypocrisy is noted and their words disregarded.

      • Latitude says:

        Why do you assume anyone is ignoring what Palin said?
        I’m not.
        I just don’t think it matters when we have elected politicians, in office, running this country….
        …that flat out lie

        Palin did not lie.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Latitude,

        You’r right Palin probably didn’t lie, she just invented a version of a historical event to connect to her 2nd amendment stance.
        Call her on it and move on from there. There is ample opportunity to make fun of herself or to explain that she was NOT accurate, and that she meant to say….blah blah blah which could be any one of a number of reasonable points she might make. If she does so, my opinion of her will actually improve.

        I was just at the bank and they had her on TV while I was waiting in line , but the sound was off. I can’t find what she said on the internet yet, but I am not holding my breath that she took that path

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS,

        I can understand that.

      • Latitude says:

        Tony, I don’t think Obama lied when he said 57 states, or Biden lied when he said he ate in that restaurant years before it was even open…..

        and I don’t think Palin lied either

        I don’t hold that against anyone.

        But I do think Obama lied when he said we would see it first, Pelosi lied when she said we would see it then have to hurry up and pass it so we can see what’s in it, Rangel, Biden, Kerry, Reid, Frank, and on and on…..

        flat out lied about things that really matter

      • Tony Duncan says:

        latitude,

        I think you are very possibly right about the lies you mention from various democratic politicians. they are not small things. Unfortunately they are not BIG things either. the ones you mention are middle things that most politicians lie about as a matter of course.
        I think a few BIG things Obama lied about was closing Guantanamo, campaigning on ending the wars. Promising to stop torture and illegal surveillance and restoring due process to american citizens. Still don’t understand why conservatives are upset that Obama can have anyone he wants detained and thrown in a military prison on his say so from records obtained outside of our guaranteed constitutional protection.

      • Latitude says:

        Guantanamo is not even on my radar…..
        …that’s a liberal thing and I’ve never cared one way or the other

        Obama lied about heath care, about the health care legislation, C-Span, about PayGo, all the Stimulus, Earmarks, hiring lobbyists, defining wealthy, about being transparent…………good grief
        Almost everything, and enough things that I don’t believe one single thing that comes out of his mouth any more.

        He says one thing in front of one group, and a total 180 in front of another. But both times he’s divisive and attacks one group of people in front of another.

        Thanks what matters to me…lies

  25. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    June 6, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    Tony, Tony, Tony. Are you getting forgetful? Or are you having problems reading the thread. YOU ACCUSED ME of several things. I responded to each referencing back to my original statement that was either made directly below your assertion, accusation, revision, or statement – or I copied your post header so it could be traced back to the original (if the original post was too cluttered).

    So you need only go back to where you accused me of whatever, read my statement where you were accusing me, and then read the whatever of yours. I am sorry, I cannot be clearer than that without recopying the entire thread here, and I doubt that would bring you any clarity.

    Perhaps a warm cup of tea, some deep breathing exercises, and then re-read the thread so you can see where you erred (oh, sorry, excuse me, where I misinterpreted the Tony’s version english language you had penned).

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Phil,
      I reread the whole thread. and have no clue what you are talking about.

      I have asked you repeatedly to supply any documentation supporting Palin’s quote. You do not do so, yet you say she is right and the “experts” are wrong.. You also say my version of history is unsupported by the historical record.
      I am waiting for you to supply evidence of this.

      I am sorry you are so fragile about being called names. I guess it happens o me so often here. I forget how upsetting it can be. that has nothing to do with anything that we are discussing however. i am also sorry that you are so upset about the potential that I could have called you a bad name.

      this particular tangent to the thread stated with you saying that I crucified Palin for one mistake. Then later you say she was right. I crucified her because she is on a tour to promote American history, and after listening to a talk about boston history she completely mangles one of the most famous episodes in American history. I find it both hysterical that she would say something so wrong, and scary that there are people who will support her even when she does something this off the charts. And then she can’t even admit she blew it and holds tight to her bizarre non-explanation.

      So I am still waiting for some evidence that Palin’s quote is in any way accurate, and some evidence that my understanding of this incident is revisionist and unsupported by the facts. You have also not provided documentation to show anything that Ungar said was wrong.
      You said basically that palin was right and her supporters are right and that they are responding with righteous indignation. Please tell me what they are right about. the only thing you mentioned, which i also mentioned as evidence that palin is WRONG, is that Revere was stopped by the British AFTER he had warned Hancock. It is very clear to anyone who is not desperate to support Palin’s quote that Revere did not start his ride to warn the british. he had a gun to his head and he told them a blatant untruth in order to intimidate them.
      but maybe I am wrong. maybe his whole plan was to GET caught so he could warn the british about the militia’s military might. and the whole warning the rebels was just a minor part of the whole deal. If you have evidence of that sort of forethought and planning it would shatter my whole scenario and i would have to apologize to Ms. palin, even if she did get the whole guns blazing bells ringing part wrong.

  26. PhilJourdan says:

    fragile about being called names

    HUH? To date, I have not accused you of calling me names. You were the one that falsely accused me of calling you names. Perhaps you are just doing an introspection and thinking about your own reactions?

    You do not do so, yet you say she is right and the “experts” are wrong..

    Tony, Tony, Tony – show me where I said that. Please, the written word is all over the page, and I defy you to show me where I said the experts were wrong. Could it be another case of introspection on your part? You are now trying to damn me with your own sins?

    Ungar said was wrong.

    Ungar was wrong? Tony, why are you drunk blogging? For that is the only way you can have so mangled this thread as to print what is obviously lies, but for the sake of civility, I will merely call mis-assumptions or mis-readings. I never called Ungar wrong. At best, you can aver I claimed his writing was non-sequitur.

    her supporters are right

    Again, with the false accusation. I can only surmise by the number of them you have penned in one post that you are attempting to either discredit me through lies, or build a strawman that you can then easily tear down. None of which I have done.

    I guess we all can see that it is not I who was crying because of name calling that did not exist. It was not I who was running around denying Ungar, or I who was saying that millions of people I have never met or conversed with must be right (how anyone would do that is beyond me, but perhaps you have some insight into that trick?). In short, I am surprised you even posted your latest on this blog as it has nothing to do with me (although it was directed at me) and only minimally (at least as far as this thread is concerned) anything to do with you (ultimately, if it is all about you, only you can answer that $64 question).

    Get some sleep and please re-read the whole thread. Your interpretation of it is not of this world.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Phil,

      I have reread the thread ANOTHER time. And your continued lack of specifics make it impossible to continue to address your objections to my comments.
      I have posted the specifics pointing out in quote marks the things you have actually written that I have responded to as well as transcribing the specific quote that this particular element of the thread is about.

      the first post that I see where you respond to the Palin quote has you saying ” She got one wrong and you crucify her” June 3, 2011 at 7:28 pm. I promptly replied by saying that she was on a tour promoting american history.

      your next post June 6, 2011 at 2:56 pm contained “I was aware that Revere never completed the ride. I was not aware of his actions upon capture. Apparently Palin was – which means she knows more than I (and you too apparently).So the Boston Tea party was in 1776 and Revere did not tell the brits that the Americans were ready for them? The egg yolks are on you.”

      I then, June 6, 2011 at 3:30 pm, referred you to what Palin ACTUALLY said, and that I WAS aware of what Revere had done when captured, and explained the chronology of events as being completely inconsistent with her statement.

      you responded June 6, 2011 at 3:39 pm. “Try again Tony! I already admitted I was wrong – time for you to man up as well. Palin was right. And since she knows more than all but a few historians, that makes her more of an expert than the authors (William Connolly for one) of Wikipedia.

      BTW – his mission was more than just the warning of one man. But no one is faulting him for getting captured. Talk about revisionists!”

      In this post you do not provide anything to dispute my post above. the “talk about revisionist” is trying to twist the issue into something it is not. I was mocking Palin’s attempts at explaining how she was “right” by taking her words literally and throwing them back at her. Sorry if you misunderstood the sarcasm.

      then I posted twice June 6, 2011 at 3:40 pm giving the forbes article and June 6, 2011 at 3:47 pm where I AGAIN ask you to explain where Palin was right in her quote. I had already explained why the incident after being captured was irrelevant and inconsistent with her quote.

      you posted June 6, 2011 at 3:45 pm. “she is right and the detractors are wrong – bottom line! So clowns like Ungar can try to spin it anyway they want, but Palin proves once again, she knows more than the so called “smartest people in the world”. ”
      yet you provide NO documentation to support what you said or to undermine my evidence.

      then posted June 6, 2011 at 3:52 pm “before I write you off an being insane. PLEASE tell me what Palin said in her wonderful speech that was correct. Was Revere ringing bells and/or firing shots to warn the British?
      Or did the LSM edit her video to make her look like an idiot?
      what in Unger’s article is wrong?”

      It was silly of me to say you might be insane. I have been on this blog for way too long and had so many question avoided that I should be quite used to it. I apologize again. I DID in THAT post immediately remember what blog I was on and resigned myself to you not answering the question or having you provide evidence that what she said was correct. and in all subsequent comments you have reconfirmed my assessment, as I point out in detail below.

      you replied June 6, 2011 at 3:58 pm “She was right about pretty much all of it. Revere did tell the British off. You seem to be trying to do a Tina Fey on Palin. Good luck with that! But then that will be your own downfall as you clearly are just wanting to trash her regardless of what she says. When the truth is she is a very smart cookie (smarter than Obama and his idiot stooge side kick).”

      So here you say she was right without providing any evidence of that. I don’t know how many times I have to tell you, but I don’t believe what someone says just because they insist that I should believe them. And your contention that he “did tell the British off ” I have dealt with and shown that it is both inconsistent with her quote, and inaccurate. He was captured and defiant, laudable qualities, but his ride had nothing to do with getting captured, so that is a totally meaningless argument.

      then you respond again. June 6, 2011 at 4:01 pm referencing my post at 3:52. and this is where i get confused, as your post seems to have nothing to do with the post your reference. “hehehe – You are not even good at obfuscation! But go ahead and swing for the big wiff by trying to put words into my mouth. Ungar did not even do that. Apaprently you did not read his article very well did you? Or you would not be making these assinine assertions and trying to cow me with threats of incivility!

      Late night for you? You are usually not this wrong or rabidly anti anything. Guess someone stepped on your ego.””

      in this post you clearly are not answering my question, which is the key point of the post you reference. You say i did not read the ungar article well, yet you do not explain what it is that I misread. And then you say I am making asinine assertions, which you ALSO to not specially, and then you say i am trying to cow you with threats of incivility. that is of course ludicrous, and i took that as you just finding something to latch onto so as not to answer my question, which has remained, what is correct in palin’s quote.

      That is pretty much what I said in the next post June 6, 2011 at 4:19 pm. I reiterated the specifics of what I GUESSED you were referring to, since you only made general statements. explained once more about Revere’s capture. I then went to the trouble of transcribing Palin’s actual words, so there would be no confusion about what she actually said.

      then you responded June 6, 2011 at 4:33 pm
      “Called you names? Please show me where? I guess you are delusional (not a name, just a description of you reading something that is not there).

      I answered your question. Was it not clear enough? Ungar said NOTHING about Palin – he was commenting on her supporters!

      Please stop being so paranoid (again not a name, just a description of your appearance that you are presenting here). And READ YOUR LINK. Then ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTIONS – as they are irrelevant and a bit “black helicopterish”.

      Once again you do NOt answer my question, although you contend you did. Unless you mean when you she was right about just about everything? Again your assertions of her being right are meaningless. I gave you her quote” and you did not address the specific things she said in the quote. the one issue about his capture I had dealt with twice and you offered no documentation to counter my explanation.
      yes I misread that you were calling me names, having read asinine. i apologize again for that. it has nothing to do with the issue. I was not being paranoid, that is a pointless statement. Once again you don;t give anything concrete saying I should read my own link and answer my own questions. that is just avoiding answering my question, AGAIN.

      I next posted June 6, 2011 at 4:50 pm. I acknowledge my error in saying you called me names. I repeated that you had provided nothing to support PAlin’s quote. I explained Ungars generous interpretation of Palin’s quote. I then re iterated that you should supply me with information supporting palin’s quote.

      your next post is frankly incomprehensible June 6, 2011 at 5:08 pm. referencing my above comment
      ““just gave”? You accused me of name calling. You then go off and decide I am some type of whacko for calling you names. None of which are printed on this page. You refuse to read the article. All are you choices, but do not tar me with your brush. You are the one going off the deep end. I merely commented on a link YOU POSTED (but apprently did not read).

      You really need to get some rest – or quit drunk blogging. You are not making any sense.”

      since I HAD read the article and I HAD supplied you with her direct quote and have been repeatedly asking you to supply an information that supports her quote, i have been expecting you to so so. But instead you go off about me saying you are a whacko, and that I am going off the deep end., ONCE AGAIN you make a general statement that you had commented on a linl, without specifying what the comment was, and accuse me of not reading the link, When I had specifically commented on particulars of it and pointed out that the unbar article was besides the point. the point being what evidence do you have that Palin’s quote was in any way correct.

      I then posted June 6, 2011 at 5:31 pm.. that I apologize for saying you called me names. I did so repeatedly so there could be no question about it. I then RE-ITERATED The question about palin’s quote, and reposted your comment where you say she is right and her detractors wrong in quote marks so that you could not say I had misread or misunderstood, since you had done so about these general issues and I could not respond clearly to them. I was very specific in that post, again, so there could be no misunderstanding.

      you then posted June 6, 2011 at 6:52 pm
      and f talk wholly in generalities again. Not addressing anything that i wrote in the above post.
      “Um, no again Tony. I called your assertions assinine, not all your statements. And that was directed to one response – not all of them, I called your accusations paranoid, not your statements. I did call your version revisionist (of Paul’s mission) as it does not jibe with any known recounting of the episode. And “black helicopterish”? I would suspect that anyone that takes a single statement and makes it an universal law covering all material (when anyone reading the thread can clearly see it was unidirectional)……well perhaps “black helicopterish” was a bit harsh. Maybe as I stated originally, you just had a bad night and want to make absolutes of anything I write.

      In which case I really cannot continue this as it is a waste of time for me to pen a statement only to have you make a blanket condemnation out of it.”

      So you totally avoid answering my question and supplying any evidence that Palin’s quote is correct in any way, then you say my version of Revere’s ride is revisionist and inconsistent with any recounting, yet you supply no explanation about what is wrong in my account or any information that counters my account. then you talk about something that I have no idea what it is referring to – “single statements” “universal laws” and “unidirectionality”, with no context or specifics to make it clear. and finally you say that you cannot continue, after once again not answering the question or supplying any information to back up Palin’s quote.

      I respond on June 6, 2011 at 8:19 pm making the points I just made above, but offering to consider your objections if you will make them specific, so that I can respond to them. I then ask you AGAIN to provide some evidence that anything palin said is accurate. Because I am so confused by what you wrote above, I offer to end the discussion if you acknowledge that there was nothing accurate in her quote. But I point out that you had said , as I quoted you earlier, that Palin was right and her detractors wrong.

      you also responded at the same time June 6, 2011 at 8:19 pm
      and you confused me even more by saying you HAD been specific.
      “Tony, Tony, Tony. Are you getting forgetful? Or are you having problems reading the thread. YOU ACCUSED ME of several things. I responded to each referencing back to my original statement that was either made directly below your assertion, accusation, revision, or statement – or I copied your post header so it could be traced back to the original (if the original post was too cluttered).”

      As I have just gone through the entire thread of our conversation and pointed out how you over and over again did NOT give specifics, I am quite mystified by this.

      “So you need only go back to where you accused me of whatever, read my statement where you were accusing me, and then read the whatever of yours. I am sorry, I cannot be clearer than that without recopying the entire thread here, and I doubt that would bring you any clarity.”
      You are right it has not brought me any clarity. I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence that Palin’s statement was accurate, and you have provided nothing up until this point. I have addressed the one area where i guessed you were addressing and pointed out how that is both inaccurate and irrelevant to Palin’s quote, and you did not offer anything information to counter that.

      then you gentlemanly offer suggestions to improve my comprehension, which I admit I did not follow since there appears to be no misunderstanding on my part.

      I then replied on June 7, 2011 at 6:17 am.
      Acknowledging my mystification at your non answer to my question about the Accuracy of Palin’s quote and any information to support her quote.
      I then acknowledge that my “name calling: might have upset you and caused you to focus on that rather than the point of our discussion.
      at that I point i AGAIN re-iterate my understanding of your position from the few specific comments you had made, and I explained AGAIN why Palin’s quote is completely inaccurate, even if one is considering his capture by the British (which Palin didn’t mention or use in her explanation later). I then invented a sarcastic scenario where an extremely fantastical version of reality could jibe with the one part of Palin’s quote.

      And then you provide the most confusing of all your comments on June 7, 2011 at 12:39 pm which I reprint in full so as to examine each specific part accurately.

      of course the key thing is that all of this was unnecessary, since the whole point was having you explain what is accurate in Palin’s quote. And as is clear from the above you have not done so, unless you are referring to his capture and I have repeatedly rebutted that without comment from you. Since it is so long I will reply in line with each of your points

      “fragile about being called names”

      “HUH? To date, I have not accused you of calling me names. You were the one that falsely accused me of calling you names. Perhaps you are just doing an introspection and thinking about your own reactions?”

      I assumed that my considering you potentially insane was tantamount to calling you names. I miswrote that later as saying I threatened to call you and idiot, but I only threatened to call you insane. if that is not name calling then i apologize for thinking that you took it as such. this is all totally irrelevant to the point we are discussing

      “You do not do so, yet you say she is right and the “experts” are wrong..”

      “Tony, Tony, Tony – show me where I said that. Please, the written word is all over the page, and I defy you to show me where I said the experts were wrong. Could it be another case of introspection on your part? You are now trying to damn me with your own sins?”

      I posted your exact quote in my comment twice, here it is
      ““Here’s the problem – she is right and the detractors are wrong – bottom line! So clowns like Ungar can try to spin it anyway they want, but Palin proves once again, she knows more than the so called “smartest people in the world”. ”

      How you could miss what you actually wrote and my reposting it in quote marks escapes me.

      “Ungar said was wrong.

      Ungar was wrong? Tony, why are you drunk blogging? For that is the only way you can have so mangled this thread as to print what is obviously lies, but for the sake of civility, I will merely call mis-assumptions or mis-readings. I never called Ungar wrong. At best, you can aver I claimed his writing was non-sequitur.”

      read your quote above. Again i don’t understand how you can misunderstand your own quote, especially when i requote it exactly for you. Ungar’s spinning a quote I took to be him saying it is wrong. You state palin was right, Unger states clearly she is wrong. it is a logical progression. You do not explain any other interpretation. Certainly not the non sequester aspect”
      again this is all irrelevant, you are not answering the question or providing information that contradicts my “assertion” which i AHVE backed up with actual information

      “her supporters are right

      Again, with the false accusation. I can only surmise by the number of them you have penned in one post that you are attempting to either discredit me through lies, or build a strawman that you can then easily tear down. None of which I have done.”

      In this case you may have a point. I can not find where you say her supporters are right, just that her detractors are wrong. Since her supporters are saying what she is saying (at least some of them) I assumed that you thought they were right. Again this is irrelevant to the point. I will retract that statement since it has no bearing on any issue we are discussing. However I will say that your total ambiguity and refusal to answer the question and supply corroborating evidence, and introduction of so many confusing things gives me some room for error in trying to address your statements. And again it is totally irrelevant to the question.

      “I guess we all can see that it is not I who was crying because of name calling that did not exist. It was not I who was running around denying Ungar, or I who was saying that millions of people I have never met or conversed with must be right (how anyone would do that is beyond me, but perhaps you have some insight into that trick?). In short, I am surprised you even posted your latest on this blog as it has nothing to do with me (although it was directed at me) and only minimally (at least as far as this thread is concerned) anything to do with you (ultimately, if it is all about you, only you can answer that $64 question).”

      I posted these thing in response to your comments in spite of none of them dealing with the question at hand. -What is accurate about Palin’s quote, and supply evidence to that effect. In my previous comment I repeatedly asked you to supply that information and I ONCE again went over the facts as I am aware of them, re-iterating your positions as I have interpreted it through your generalities and tried to respond to your confusing statements. I tried to engage you in a discussion of Palin’s quote and how it could be considered accurate.

      you last post did not deal with that and only brought up peripheral issues that have nothing to do with the question I have repeatedly asked you.
      it would have saved us a lot of time, if you would just take Palin’s quote, as I transcribed it, and indicate what aspects of it are correct, and then point to some documentation in support of your assertion, that I copied directly from your comment, that “Palin was right. And since she knows more than all but a few historians, that makes her more of an expert than the authors (William Connolly for one) of Wikipedia.”

      if you are unwilling to answer the question o please tell me so that I stop wasting both our time. As I said I am a patient man, and I will wait it out, until you either answer or specifically refuse to. Boy I miss arguing with SUYTS!. Which reminds me I have to go and comment supporting his most recent comment!

      “Get some sleep and please re-read the whole thread. Your interpretation of it is not of this world.”

      Well, you can now see I have reread the thread commented on almost every aspect of it, and find nothing to explain your refusal to document how Palin’s quote is accurate. Since that is the entire point of the thread, I don’t see how my interpretation is not of this world.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Tony, you like responding to Suyts because he allows you to bait him. I called you out on it, and you fell down, trying to put words into my mouth, and accuse me of all sorts of heinous things. That you may have later retracted them does not change the fact that your posts were factually inaccurate – as I pointed out in each of my responses (quoting the inaccurate part, not the entire post as you seem to have to do). That you can quote an entire post does not mean you read it, or that you understand it. But that is for you to ultimately decide since I have no clue who,what, or how you are.

        I refuse to be baited, and called you out on your mis-statements and obfuscations. Should you have a problem with my WRITTEN word, please debate them, as I have yours. But what you may not do is put words into my mouth, or tell me what I can and cannot write. only the owner of the blog can do that, and until he tells me that (in which case I will have the option of simply not posting), I would suggest you confine your comments to either the blog, the WRITTEN comments, or your opinion. Telling me what I must and must not do is not part of your rights here. Should Steve decide to make you a moderator, you do then have those rights. But not until.

  27. PhilJourdan says:

    My apologies. The above response was in response to Tony’s posting here:

    Tony Duncan says:
    June 7, 2011 at 6:17 am

    I did not click the reply or post the header previously. Again, sorry for my mistake.

  28. Ill wind blowing says:

    She couldn’t hack Alaska’s governorship. Now she quits her tour halfway. Apparently she decided that Mid-Westerners and South-Easterners aren’t worthy of her time; only those North-Eastern libural intelecturals.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/no-joke-sarah-palin-reportedly-quits-one-nation-bus-tour-halfway-through/

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        Steve to Tony:

        “I understand that you are mental.”

        Steve to IWB:

        What a maroon.”

        Such amazing logic not to mention wit. Makes me wish I were a skeptic. 😉

    • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

      Sarah was surprised the media knew more about her future plans than she did!

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        Grump says:

        “Sarah was surprised the media knew more about her future plans than she did!”

        I see that you’re parroting her twitter “explanation” but as soon as fact finding and deductive reasoning possess your soul I’ll simply say:

        She called it a One Nation Bus Tour. Perhaps in Palin logic that means the northeast only.

        Conservatives are expressing their disappointment on the internet. Perhaps they know what’s going on. Or perhaps the media has brainwashed conservatives into believing that her “nationwide tour” was

        a) Never really a nationwide tour in the first place. A Sarah Palin impersonator said that as part of a complex conspiracy to ridicule her.

        b) Never abandoned in the first place. She’s still on tour but only incognito to hide from the Marxist/Socialist/Communist Media. A double of hers is in Alaska to give the false impression that she’s elsewhere.

        Face it people, you’re d***ing that Sarah Palin is the manipulative, attention seeking, responsibility fleeing husk of a human being. 🙂

  29. Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

    IWB is getting in shape for a sorting event with the exercise program of “Running off at the mouth and Jumping to conclusions” .

  30. Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

    Maybe Artificial Intelligence would help. I will get a blonde to dye her hair brunette.

  31. PhilJourdan says:

    Ill wind blowing says:
    June 23, 2011 at 4:13 am

    She called it a One Nation Bus Tour. Perhaps in Palin logic that means the northeast only.

    Ah, the truth is simple and innocent! Just called for jury duty. But in your haste to make your hate a proud emblem on your vest, you have instead come off looking like a fool. 2 items of advice.

    #1 – Never assume – it only makes an a$$ out of you.
    #2 – do not hate. It clouds your reason and makes you look stupid.

    • Ed Darrell says:

      Jury duty? Good for her for doing her duty, for a change.

      If she gets empaneled on a jury, I hope they have alternate jurors.

      • Ed,

        You told us a few weeks ago that Lake Powell was about to dry up. How is that working out for you?

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Ed – Alternates? Why? because adjudicating a case based upon the evidence presented is Anti-American all of a sudden? Guess you have to be a “feeling” liberal to be a good juror?

        How about you make a deal with her – everyone she acquits, you will take into your house.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        You told us a few weeks ago that Lake Powell was about to dry up. How is that working out for you?

        Still suffering from your lack of Boy Scout experience, or is this the effects of age?

        I did not say Powell is about to dry up. In response to your trumpeting this year’s unusual and dangerous snowpack in the Upper Colorado states, I pointed out Powell is still in drought condition, and even record runoffs will not restore Powell to its filled and normal levels, especially with the drought continuing to hammer the Lower Colorado states.

        I see you’ve been away from the television and newspapers since that exchange. Arizona has been wracked by record wildfires. Bloomberg notes that, with exception of those few areas threatened with floods, the Southwest remains in drought:

        The West: Dry conditions prevailed over much of the southwest this week, with wet conditions over the Rocky Mountains and northern Utah. Improvements were made to the drought status in southeast Colorado after several days of precipitation. Improvements to D1/D2/D3 along the Colorado and Kansas borders were made while some D0 was improved in northern Colorado. In southwest Colorado, continued dryness has allowed for D0 to be pushed north out of New Mexico and into Colorado.

        Dryness in New Mexico continued, with D3 expanded in northeast New Mexico and D4 pushed farther south along the border with Texas.

        The drought in Texas, of course, continues to worsen and deepen. The record wildfires of this spring threaten to return at any moment — 100% of Texas is in drought, with a 63% reduction in wheat harvest now expected, and total damage to Texas farming of at least $4 billion this year.

        Even Fox News notes that the record snowpack doesn’t get Powell and Mead out of the drought danger:

        Lakes Powell and Mead, the massive reservoirs created by damning the Colorado, have been extremely low for many years. Because of this year’s boon, Lake Powell is expected to rise by 17 feet, Lake Mead by more than 30. But even such massive inflow will only be enough to bring the two back up to capacity. And while an expected water shortage declaration in California, Nevada and Arizona this year has been delayed until at least 2015, the future of the arid West does not shimmer like water.

        “The long-term trends in this basin are problematic (due to) population growth, energy development and things like that,” Kenny explains. “And the trends are for supply to go down primarily due to climate change. So the solution is going to have to be…using water more efficiently, maybe transferring water out of agriculture to the cities, doing some creative and cooperative things.”

        Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/14/western-snow-equals-water-relief/#ixzz1Q91YQqUr

        In the San Jose Mercury-News an AP story says the longer-term prospects are not so bright:

        BOULDER, Colo.—Deep spring snowpack in parts of the West has given states in the Colorado River basin some relief from drought, but water officials said Thursday there’s still work to do to keep faucets running in the future.

        Before this year, there was a “serious possibility” that a water shortage would be declared next year for California, Arizona and Nevada, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor said. That has been deferred until at least 2015, he said.

        Nevertheless Lake Mead and Lake Powell, which together can store up to 50 million acre-feet of water, are still not full, and there’s no guarantee reservoirs will be full by the next drought.

        “There is a precarious balance between supply and demand, and it’s getting worse,” Connor said at a conference at the University of Colorado Law School.

        So, your memory is failing still (that’s the nice explanation). How’s that denialism working for you?

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Ed – Alternates? Why?

        Most Americans are aware that in a jury trial, alternate jurors are named in the instance that a juror drops out before deliberations — it’s a failsafe to make sure there are enough jurors to keep the processes fair and legal.

        Do you really think Palin could vote to acquit anyone she’s not related to?

    • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

      Phil:
      Delete the word look and you have the perfect fit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s