Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 21, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Benghazi Fiasco
  • Gosnell Trial
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Rich Noyes's blog
  • The Obama Scandal the Big Three Networks Aren't Telling You About
  • WashPost 'Express' Tabloid Cover Laments: How Can Obama 'Break from the Storm' of Scandals?
  • It Gets Worse: WashPost Reports Obama DOJ Also Spied on James Rosen of Fox News
  • Crowley to Obama Advisor: 'Why Didn't the President Just Say, Yeah, Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack?'
  • CBS's Sharyl Attkisson Says Team Obama 'Perfected' Delaying Info Release And Has 'Quit Talking to Me Altogether'
  • Fareed Zakaria Howler: 'Obama’s World View is Rooted in American Exceptionalism'
  • Video: Brent Bozell Cautions Media Will Quickly Revert to Defending Obama, Attacking GOP Over Scandals
  • Bozell Column: 'Progress' Gets Canceled

For Third Straight Weeknight, NBC Continues to Obsess Over Sarah Palin’s Revere Tale

By Rich Noyes | June 07, 2011 | 21:24

A  A
Rich Noyes's picture

For the third time in as many weeknights, the NBC Nightly News has devoted airtime to the fuss over Sarah Palin’s recounting of Paul Revere’s ride at the onset of the Revolutionary War. This time, the newscast featured a full report by correspondent Lee Cowan showcasing how both Palin supporters and detractors have been attempting to edit the Wikipedia page about Revere.

That’s the same issue that bothered anchor Brian Williams on Monday night (Williams was off on Tuesday, with Lester Holt substituting). On the June 6 broadcast, Williams noted that “a political web site reported today Palin supporters have attempted to change the story of Revere's ride on Wikipedia to reflect her version of events.”

But with Wiki’s Paul Revere page now locked and presumably scrubbed of the unwanted submissions of the Palinites, the account seems to back pretty much everything Palin said. And, throughout all of their coverage, which began Friday night, NBC has — with minor exceptions — carefully avoided saying exactly what Palin has said that is supposedly incorrect.

Williams on Friday played the following clip of Palin in Boston:

SARAH PALIN: He who warned the British that they weren’t 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.

That night, Williams only specifically disputed the reference to bells: “Of course, the real life version involves lanterns.” In the brief item on Monday, Williams simply asserted that Palin’s story “differs with history,” but offered no specific clarification.

In Tuesday’s story, both the introduction by anchor Lester Holt and a soundbite from NBC historian Michael Beschloss took aim at how, in Holt’s words, Palin had “said Revere was out to warn the British.” The main piece, by Cowan, did not quarrel with Palin at all, but documented how the “Wikipedians” at Wikipedia have had to chase down “dozens of revisions” in recent days, to the point where now, Cowan revealed, “the site is now temporarily locked.”

But the now “locked” Wikipedia site, presumably now cleansed of partisan shenanigans, recounts how Revere was captured by the British and told his captors “that British army troops would be in some danger” (a warning?) and how the “town bell began to clang rapidly” to alert the town — all of which would seem to confirm Palin’s rendition.

Here’s the relevant graph from the Wikipedia page on Paul Revere (which I grabbed at about 8pm ET on June 7):

Revere was captured and questioned by the British soldiers at gunpoint. He told them of the army's movement from Boston, and that British army troops would be in some danger if they approached Lexington, because of the large number of hostile militia gathered there. He and other captives taken by the patrol were still escorted east toward Lexington, until about a half mile from Lexington they heard a gunshot. The British major demanded Revere explain the gunfire, and Revere replied it was a signal to "alarm the country". As the group drew closer to Lexington, the town bell began to clang rapidly, to which one of the captives proclaimed to the British soldiers "The bell's a'ringing! The town's alarmed, and you're all dead men!" The British soldiers gathered and decided not to press further towards Lexington, to instead free the prisoners and to head back to warn their commanders.

The correspondent footnote attributes the information to the book Paul Revere's Ride, by historian David Hackett Fischer -- written in 1994, long before Palin’s account became a media controversy.

Of course, the main purpose of Revere’s ride (and that of the other patriots that night) was to warn the Americans, not the British. That said, it might be a fairer statement to say that Palin “buried the lead” rather than to flatly state, as Williams did on Monday, that her version “differs from history.” And three consecutive weeknights of coverage seems a lot like overkill for a statement uttered by a non-candidate -- especially since NBC failed to even cover errors from Barack Obama when he was an actual candidate for president four years ago.

Here’s how NBC has covered the story on Monday and Tuesday’s Nightly News broadcasts, starting with Brian Williams on Monday (for a recap of Friday’s coverage, click here)

# NBC Nightly News, June 6:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Sarah Palin is defending her own version of the story of the famous ride of Paul Revere. After last week giving a version to reporters that differs with history, this weekend she insisted she got it right:

SARAH PALIN (on Fox News Sunday): Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that, hey, you're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we had. He did warn the British and, in a shout-out, gotcha-type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly, and I know my American history.

WILLIAMS: By the way, we checked — the "shout-out, gotcha question" that got her talking about Paul Revere was a reporter asking her, quote, "What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?" A political web site reported today Palin supporters have attempted to change the story of Revere's ride on Wikipedia to reflect her version of events.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

# NBC Nightly News, June 7:

LESTER HOLT: So what's the true story behind Paul Revere's famous ride? It's a question that's made for some spirited debate ever since Sarah Palin said Revere was out to warn the British. And now that debate has moved to the online pages of Wikipedia, where, with a few strokes of the keyboard, Palin supporters are hoping to square her version of history. Here's NBC's Lee Cowan,

[Graphic: JUST THE FACTS?]

LEE COWAN, over the sound of hoofbeats: "One if by land, two if by sea." You know the rest. When Henry Wadsworth Longfellow celebrated Paul Revere's famous ride, few really cared that he took some poetic license. After all, he was more right than most.

WOMAN ON THE STREET: Paul Revere and the Raiders? I know that. They're a singing group. Is that close enough?

MAN ON THE STREET: That's the guy that was yelling back in the days of World War II. He was like, "the British are coming, the British are coming." Right?

COWAN: It's exactly the kind of brain-freeze that Wikipedia can thaw. The online encyclopedia has become the chief arbiter of the water cooler dispute. In the last few days, its Paul Revere page has seen more fighting than Lexington and Concord, all because of someone else's ride through Boston.

SARAH PALIN (from last week): You know, he who warned the British that they weren’t be taking away our arms.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, NBC News historian: If Sarah Palin had it to do all over again, my bet is that she would not say that Paul Revere was out there trying to warn the British.

COWAN: Palin's critics quickly raced to Wikipedia, to Wiki-prove that she was wrong. But so did those who thought she was right. Almost instantly, dozens of revisions sprung up on the page, that squared with Palin's account.

STEVEN WALLING: Nothing is ever set in stone. We can come back and change and revise things and revisit them as needed.

COWAN, to Walling: But only if it's accurate?

WALLING: Yeah.

COWAN: Steven Walling is a Wikipedian, one of the thousands of volunteers who act like online sheriffs, making sure that what's posted on Wikipedia isn't just flat out wrong.

WALLING: Actually, the metaphor that a lot of Wikipedians use is more like "janitors." They come and, you know, someone adds something new, and they decide whether it needs to be cleaned up or not.

COWAN: Like his silver, Paul Revere's page needed a heavy polishing -- so much so, that the site is now temporarily locked. Unlike beauty, history isn't just in the eye of the beholder -- unless, of course, you're writing poetry. Lee Cowan, NBC News, San Francisco.

For NBC’s own posted video of Tuesday night’s piece, click here.

About the Author

Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Rich Noyes on Twitter.
  • 2012 Presidential
  • Lee Cowan
  • Sarah Palin
  • NBC
  • NBC Nightly News
  • Rich Noyes's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

Folksy word salad. Stewart

Submitted by balboa on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:36pm.

Folksy word salad. Stewart nailed it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-6-2011/sarah-palin-s-folksy-w...

  • Login to post comments

~Stewart's number one fanboy

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:42pm.

Strikes again.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

The guy is good.

Submitted by balboa on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:43pm.

The guy is good.

  • Login to post comments

~Good luck with your bromance

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:45pm.

.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

No He Isnt

Submitted by Utherpend on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 12:11pm.

Jon Stewart is repetitive and derivative. He has an audience that laugh and clap like trained seals and never has anyone on who calls him out on his factual errors.

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."
  • Login to post comments

→ C'mon! It's comedy!!!

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 12:15pm.

Just thought I'd save Balboa a few keystrokes.

  • Login to post comments

That's what you're here for,

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:45pm.

That's what you're here for, I thought.

  • Login to post comments

Nah---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:06pm.

Cool is here to give you libs strokes, not reduce them.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Surprise Surprise, Jon Stewart doesn't like folks

Submitted by Dee Bunk on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:47pm.

Jon Stewart is a jerk. If only Sarah spoke Austrian he could respect her. Obama has made more mistakes and gaffs in PREPARED speeches than Sarah makes in off the cuff remarks.

  • Login to post comments

You didnt watch the video,

Submitted by balboa on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:58pm.

You didnt watch the video, did you. Shocking. What does Austrian have to do with anything?

  • Login to post comments

No don't need to watch Stewart

Submitted by Dee Bunk on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:02pm.

Austrian is a language that the genius Obama invented.

  • Login to post comments

Well his point was that she

Submitted by balboa on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:08pm.

Well his point was that she made a mistake, but instead of admitting she goofed, she acts as if she meant to say what she did.

  • Login to post comments

But Sarah didn't make a mistake balboa

Submitted by Dee Bunk on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:27pm.

Didn't you read this post did you? If you don't like it or Wiki then how about this @ the LA times "You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British? Well, he did. Now, who looks stupid?" http://lat.ms/jsBgQd or this from the Boston Herald "Experts Back Sarah Palin's Historical Account http://bit.ly/j9rKZG

Stewart is wrong on all accounts. First he claims that people don't really mind the folksy "word salad" but the only reason she had to comment on it was because people were going crazy about it! Duh! Then of course he's wrong that she was wrong as evidenced by the above articles and this Newsbusters post.

I don't think she goofed at all. She meant to say what she said.

Stewart is a jerk. I'll take the folksy work salad over the sophisticated Marxist doctrine that Obama espouses. Oh yeah and speaking of history, remember when Obama thought that his uncle and Americans liberated Auschwitz? That's a socialist word salad in a PREPARED speech.

  • Login to post comments

Oh, that's beautiful Dee!!!

Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:30pm.

Oh, that's beautiful Dee!!! Thanks for those links!!!

  • Login to post comments

It is total baloney that

Submitted by balboa on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:44pm.

It is total baloney that Palin meant to say what she said. It's ridiculous. She goofed and just happened to be right. By accident.

And the whole "gotcha" characterization was garbage too.

  • Login to post comments

And just how the hell do you know she was

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:15pm.

Right by "accident"? Just can't believe she might know more than you, can you?

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

→ R1

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:21pm.

What he is trying to say is that Sarah Palin may be right by accident, but Balboa is ignorant by choice, even when presented with the facts.

  • Login to post comments

Cool

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:33pm.

I generally tend to think Bal's ignorance is willful. Then there are times like this when I am convinced he has no choice in the matter.

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

The facts don't support her

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:46am.

The facts don't support her stumbling, fumbling, which the video does. If Palin hadn't tried to act like she didn't goof, I wouldn't care.

  • Login to post comments

Have to ask Bal,

Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:58pm.

Technically, ask again/

You say it is the denial that bothers you and I can understand that but you haven't demonstrated having a problem with the long list of of gaffes, misstatements and historical goofs perpetrated by other political figures when they don't come out own up to their mistakes.  Just because they a politician ducks his head or in the case of Democrats - the media doesn't follow up to ask them about their mistakes it is okay with you. 

There are a lot of possibilities you don't know the answer to and you are so decided on this one issue but willing to disregard so much and we aren't supposed to believe it is not because of your personal bias.  57 states was an honest mistake but it was never explained so should everyone assume the President Obama thinks there are 57 states because he didn't apologize for making a mistake?  Of course not but you can fill up a couple of threads with a similar argument against a female conservative politician you don't like.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

I don't really have a problem

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 2:26pm.

I don't really have a problem with anyone's gaffes. They're fun to see and joke about, sure. I'm sure they're bound to make mistakes. Obama said "57." Great. Whatever. But he didn't then make up some excuse about what he said, whereas Palin did, and then tried to paint herself as some kind of victim by saying it was a "gotcha" question.

If someone had questioned Obama, and he had a lame reason for his gaffe, I'd be just as annoyed, especially if the video showed him struggling as much as Palin did with her answer. If he said "I have no idea why I said that; it was a mistake," that's way more palatable.

If Palin had responded to Wallace's question with "Slip of the tongue, that's all," I doubt we'd still be talking about it on here.

  • Login to post comments

Don't have a problem?

Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 2:45pm.

"If someone had questioned Obama" is the issue. No body did that had access because the media is not out to make Obama look bad and they shouldn't be except when he does something that deserves such treatment.

So, somebody questioned Palin and she defended her statement.  Did she know at the time how it sounded and looked on video?  Or, was it simply she recalled answering a question and thought she did so well enough? 

Ever write something and have it make perfect sense to you because you knew what you were trying to communicate but realize how incoherent it reads when you see it latter?

I used to have a tagline that generally said that, " I will never forgive the liberals for making have to defend President George Bush so much."  I feel the same now about Palin. IMO, you should be more upset that the media forced a non-elected citizen to explain her remarks while allowing professional and office holding public figures to go unanswerable for theirs.  What else is the media not holding are elected officials accountable for should be the next question.  In fact, I would think their are several questions that would desire an answer before I would wonder about some off the cuff historical statement made by a potential candidate.

I'm still waiting to hear why it is so imperative to peace and the logic behind the President expecting Israel to go back to 1967 borders.  Also, why he misled the representatives of Israel on what would be contained in the speech.  

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

Did she know at the time? I

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 3:03pm.

Did she know at the time? I hope so. Surely someone in her camp let her know as it was everywhere.

Should the media have questioned Obama on the 57 thing? Should've, absolutely.

And Wallace hardly "forced her" to explain. He said, "You realize that you messed up about Paul Revere, don’t you?", almost as an aside during that interview. (And even though she doesn't hold office right now, she's a public figure.)

The media is far from perfect. That I would always agree with.

  • Login to post comments

Did she know? Bal,

Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 3:11pm.

You are on full attack and you don't know. No big deal that is what sites like this are for anyway.

However, I find it curious that even knowing the media is far from perfect and don't follow up on issues that are intricately related to our foreign relations, alliances and future is less likely to draw your ire than Sarah Palin not owning up to a potential flub she may or may not even have know about.

Perhaps I am simplifying too much.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

You don't think someone like

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 3:19pm.

You don't think someone like Palin has "people" that would mention it to her? Especially with it being all over the media?

Media screw-ups do bother me, "draw my ire," but I find myself getting more drawn into the Right v. Left nature of the discussions more.

Someday news outlets could swing back the other way, and then we'll have the same arguments from a different perspective. What are the odds that we'll ever have a media that is completely devoid of bias? Pretty slim, I'd say.

...until our computer overlords take over that process.

  • Login to post comments

Let's be completely honest Bal,

Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 3:43pm.

"Media screw-ups do bother me, "draw my ire," but I find myself getting more drawn into the Right v. Left nature of the discussions more." - Shouldn't that be that you get drawn into representing the left in attacking the right.  Force was a strong word but she was at least approached.  The left is not often approached and requested to explain themselves unless they are already knee-deep in a scandal.  I dare project that if the media were following up with the left in an equal manner you would most likely get little argument from anyone at this site about Palin's unusual response.

By human nature the media can not be without bias. This nation never had a conservative bias to the papers when compared to political inclination of the public and that has to do a great deal of the major media markets being in areas more inclined to be liberal.  There were plenty of conservatives in the news media however and they developed an almost compare and contrast for those who followed but that disappeared quickly following WW1.

Liberal used to be a good thing until enough liberals decided the progressive ideas of liberalism meant common good, government influence and forcing others to accept what liberals thought was good for them.  Liberalism used to about finding ways to free the individual to achieve their potential not create some societal norm for potential and dictate laws that forced those above that norm to sacrifice to those below the norm in order to achieve some utopian idea of fairness and then in then in sign of their arrogance not apply those sacrifices to themselves.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

→ Take note, Agnostic

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 4:37pm.

Now he claims he's drawn into the Left vs Right argument, having lost his "accurate vs inaccurate" argument.

  • Login to post comments

You're not following the

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:18pm.

You're not following the discussion.

  • Login to post comments

→ Don't have to

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:32pm.

I've seen your dying quail flail before.

  • Login to post comments

I think you meant to say

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:34pm.

I think you meant to say "solid argument based on logic."

  • Login to post comments

→ Yeah, that's it.

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:42pm.

I forgot about the boolean inversion of your thought processes where, correct = correct if and only if offered by a liberal. If offered by a conservative, correct = incorrect.

You're absolutely right. In at least one of an infinite number of universes, your logic is solid.

  • Login to post comments

I don't think that way, but

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 7:18pm.

I don't think that way, but it probably appears that way because I don't often post on stories where I agree with you righties.

  • Login to post comments

~

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 7:23pm.

I don't often post on stories where I agree with you righties.

Are you afraid the shock would kill us?

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

I always looked at it more as

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:33pm.

I always looked at it more as being one of the dissenting voices in a righty love-fest. :-)

  • Login to post comments

→ Righty love-fest

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:50pm.

And you're equally comfortable as a member of the Olbermann/Matthews/Balboa Inexplicably Strange and Inextricably Intertwined League of Palin Pounding Popup Moles.

  • Login to post comments

I'm hardly "pounding" her,

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 7:08pm.

I'm hardly "pounding" her, and Matthews and Olbermann are idiots.

  • Login to post comments

"2 out of 3 aint bad."

Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 7:18pm.

"2 out of 3 aint bad." --Meatloaf

 

   /// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 ///    خال

  • Login to post comments

You watch the video. She is

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:25am.

You watch the video. She is clearly spinning her wheels. That's easy to recognize.

There is absolutely no way she suddenly decided to mention an obscure piece of history.

  • Login to post comments

Oh, I agree. Wheel-spinning is easy to recognize.

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:25am.

.

  • Login to post comments

Palin being consistantly

Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:39am.

Palin being consistantly proven correct is just killing you, isn't it? May I propose that you would be less upset if you stopped believing the false MSM meme that she is an idiot.

 

   /// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 ///    خال

  • Login to post comments

Thanks for reminding me balboa meant to address "gotcha"

Submitted by Dee Bunk on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:31pm.

It's nice that you can just know what she meant. Listen to yourself. You just want to assume the worst. Would it KILL you to give her the benefit of the doubt since you obviously have NO proof! It's really sick. Even after she's shown to be right, you have to say she's lucky. She can't win with haters like you.

As far as the "gotcha" question, what she meant there and was clear to me, was that they ask questions just to get her. It doesn't mean that it's a hard question. It means that what ever question they ask her is meant to get her to say something, anything that they can dissect and turn into a Katie Couric moment. Yeah, you can laugh it up and act like she thinks "gotcha" means hard but it doesn't.

Obviously even the question Katie Couric asked wasn't a hard question. Anyone could answer it including Sarah Palin. If someone asks me my favorite band, I'd have to say, there's too many, I can just give you one or a few. She obviously reads and the fact that people insinuated she didn't from that was ridiculous. People like you just hate her and let your hate assume the worst possible thing about her at every turn. Why can't you just grow up and argue with the policies you disagree with?

  • Login to post comments

I wouldn't kill me, if it

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:38am.

I wouldn't kill me, if it wasn't so obvious she was floundering.

And it was hardly a gotcha question in any way, shape or form.

  • Login to post comments

Exactly. Palin was flat-out

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:11am.

Exactly. Palin was flat-out lying about that. The actual question: "What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?" That's only a "gotcha" question in a world in which ANY question is a "gotcha" question. And it isn't inconceivable that Palin believes that. She has lied in the past about this sort of thing (she said it of the Couric question that initially exposed her back in 2008), and she has asserted that criticizing her threatens her 1st Amendment rights.

  • Login to post comments

PDS continues.........

Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:11am.

PDS continues.........

  • Login to post comments

You should not be on this thread

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:43pm.

You're still getting your ass handed to you on the Stephie-Coulter thread. Run along.

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

For someone who falsely claims ...

Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 4:01pm.

to be a classical liberal you are very loose with the word 'lie'.

  • Login to post comments

Oh look. The crypto-dummy is talking about killing again.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:20am.

You ready to open up on why you will take the word of a convicted cop killer over the 12 jururs that had to determine whether the evidence showed guilt BEYOND ALL DOUBT.

 

Mmmmmm. Cop killer propaganda. Yummy. Yummy. Yummy. Iz crypto-dummy wantz morr.

  • Login to post comments

Geez, Beck has a point

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:45pm.

You take her at face value when she is inaccurate, but can't take her at face value when she is. She can only be right by "accident".

The mental gymnastics you guys go through.

"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

wrong by accident?

Submitted by stunned on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:04am.

So all the MSM and press libs were wrong by accident when they openly mocked her for telling the story correctly and then not even bothering to correct their smears?

tired of liberal lies

  • Login to post comments

Oh crypto-dummy balboa. Tell the boys and girls.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 3:13am.

Tell everyone how right you are that two convicted cop killers are innocent simply because you have some doubt. Then tell the everyone where you got that doubt - from interviews where the 2 cop killers that claim they are innocent.

Tell the boys and girls how right you are crypto-dummy.

  • Login to post comments

Gosh, Bal...

Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 8:34am.

What was it you said earlier in this thread:

"Well his point was that she made a mistake, but instead of admitting she goofed, she acts as if she meant to say what she did."

So I guess it's YOU who can't admit to a mistake, huh?

Pathetic.

  • Login to post comments

Let me get this straight ....

Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 1:22am.

Sarah Palin accurately recounts some of the actions of Paul Revere, particularly those he took after he was captured by the British while making his famous ride.

The ignorant morons in the Press hear this and report that Sarah Palin doesn't even know what Revere did that night and she got it all wrong.

You conclude she goofed and got it right by accident????

I am having a problem discerning who is the bigger fool : you or the MSM morons who smeared Palin for their own ignorance.  Are you sure you aren't related to Dan Rather of 'the documents are phony but the story is accurate' fame?

  • Login to post comments

NL, Right by accident= Democracy by fatwa

Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 2:38am.

Peace in our time. Our balboa poster "right by accident"

Days of ducktape and hair pulling, are here... Soon to be augmented with rent clothing.

 

````````````````````````````````

That Ol' CinC  'N , War Four.... Rhymes with Darfur, warfour.

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

double post

Submitted by Dee Bunk on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:42pm.

double

  • Login to post comments

I think the fact that balboa

Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:14pm.

I think the fact that balboa had no idea what you meant by the Austrian comment tells you everything you need to know.

  • Login to post comments

Yeah, Glad you got it NC Cop

Submitted by Dee Bunk on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:32pm.

Obama has made so many gaffs and stupid statements but liberals like balboa judge conservatives as stupid because they can't decipher that the media is manipulating them and feeding them a meme. It's sad. Really sad. I used to get suckered by the media too. Now, when people can point out the obvious glaring differences, one should be able to think for themselves, but I guess many still can't.

  • Login to post comments

I've never said nor thought

Submitted by balboa on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:44pm.

I've never said nor thought that Palin was stupid.

  • Login to post comments

But, according to you, bal---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:13pm.

Palin was right 'by accident.'

That doesn't really comport with your " I've never said or thought that Palin was stupid."  line.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

MD

Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:24pm.

"Palin was right 'by accident.'

I see Balboa's point. Once I meant to write that Balboa was "intellectually honest", but I accidentally typed "disingenuous" instead. :)

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

Chris---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:25pm.

I blame my accidents on these damn slippery keyboards!     :o)

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

MD

Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 12:14am.

Yeah, like Palin, who according to Balboa, "accidentally" slipped into being correct - I did too. :)

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

embarassed to admit..

Submitted by dmacleo on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:30am.

that one got by me too :(

dmacleo http://www.theconservativevoices.com
  • Login to post comments

Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:36am.

Long time, no see.

:-)

-Dave

Vote for the American in November

  • Login to post comments

Dee !!

Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:40am.

Good to see you here ! :-)

 

   /// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 ///    خال

  • Login to post comments

Hi Free & Dave

Submitted by Dee Bunk on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 2:32pm.

Wieners and horseback rides bring me out ; )

This ridiculous meme on Sarah Palin is pathetic. Will these smarty pants liberals EVER speak to the issues she brings up? No. Sure sign they're losers and haters.

  • Login to post comments

Ms. Bunk!!!!

Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 2:35pm.

Where the heck have you been?

Great to see you back here. Weiner aside, of course (now that he's been, *ahem* fully exposed).

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Hi Blonde

Submitted by Dee Bunk on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 11:17am.

I might be checking in again from time to time. Hope all is well with you

  • Login to post comments

Hi Blonde

Submitted by Dee Bunk on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 11:17am.

I might be checking in again from time to time. Hope all is well with you

  • Login to post comments

Hi Blonde

Submitted by Dee Bunk on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 11:14am.

I might be checking in again from time to time. Hope all is well with you

  • Login to post comments

John Stewart is no Gaggle

Submitted by tegajay on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 2:06pm.

Now the Gaggle comic that used to be on the frontpage of NewsBusters was funny. John Stewart is just a pale shadow in the glow of Gaggle

  • Login to post comments

JournOLists are so frantic to

Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:37pm.

JournOLists are so frantic to get the focus off Weinergate. But Weinergate is nuclear hot and not going anywhere. CNN chased the Weiner down today demanding to know if he was going to resign. When the JournOlists who used to kiss your @ss on command now chase you around asking when you're going to resign...
You're going to resign.
Then, it's OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!

  • Login to post comments

Whatever the liberals are so misguided they are

Submitted by gmaniac1 on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:41pm.

probably getting their history of Paul Revere from that Beastie Boys song from the same title.

  • Login to post comments

Yet, did NBC spend multiple

Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:53pm.

Yet, did NBC spend multiple nights, or any night at all, examining the accuracy of Joe Biden's hopelessly mangled inaccurate statement of how "Franklin Roosevelt handled the 1929 stock market crash by going on television with a speech"? Hmmm, they do handle these things differently depending on who they're covering - or not.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

Excellent

Submitted by grammajane on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:55pm.

excellent post .......Chris Norman

  • Login to post comments

Thanks Jane

Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:53pm.

Eh - someone else would have brought up the same comparison if I hadn't gotten to it first.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

Jabber

Submitted by grammajane on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 9:52pm.

The elite educated ivy league jouralists are all about "how can we hurt Palin and discredit her on the evening news tonight and not report on Wennie?" Used to kind of like Holt but, now since he sits in for the radical lib Williams, he has joined in with all the bias jabber. No hope for him now to be a balanced host as long as he hangs with Williams. It's a shame for a young man to get the brainwash so early in his career

  • Login to post comments

NBC

Submitted by jessieH on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 10:13pm.

Palin was right. NBC is a joke. Paul Revere DID exactly what Sarah said, but the LSM (lame street media) hasn't even checked her story. Not surprising. What would George Soros know about our history?

                                                                                                                                                                    

  • Login to post comments

Mr Beschloss, learn English or Logic

Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:01pm.

SARAH PALIN: You know, he who warned the British that they weren’t be taking away our arms.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, NBC News historian: If Sarah Palin had it to do all over again, my bet is that she would not say that Paul Revere was out there trying to warn the British

"warned" is simple past tense and as such it does not imply "trying". If you almost hit me with your car, I can warn "Watch it!" without "trying to warn" you. Sarah wasn't exactly clear, but your winning your argument by adding more than what she implied. There's no "trying to warn". You're wrong. Your logic is atrocious, and your defense of liberal media piling on is inexcusable.

NBC needs to to an Emily Latella here, and cut their losses.

  • Login to post comments

Did NBC ever get around to

Submitted by d1carter on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:09pm.

Did NBC ever get around to covering the Weiner story...?

  • Login to post comments

I saw one of Williams' first reports on this...

Submitted by krendler on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 11:46pm.

He recounted Palin's comments where she mention Revere and bells, then, at the end - couldn't help himself - smirked and reminded everyone that it was - OF COURSE (as in "You know. I know. and everyone else knows - except for this idiot woman") - lanterns - not bells - that were used. Should have been a thought bubble over Williams head: "Huh. Huh. Get it everybody? She's an idiot. That's the entire point of putting this non-news story on the air. See. She said bells. It was lanterns. We hope you hate this woman as much as we do. "

  • Login to post comments

What good

Submitted by bobbys on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 2:13am.

What good is having a perfectly good time machine if I cannot go back in time, Change Paul's ride to fit SP's account to make Brian's head explode?

  • Login to post comments

Palin's brief, stumbling and essentially incomprehensible

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 2:36am.

interpretive summary of 'The Ride of Paul Revere' remains just as profoundly misinformed today as it did when originally delivered in all of its cringing gobbledygookiness last week.  And that is so despite the presence of a fact or two discovered amidst the verbal clutter [and confirmed by respected American history scholars], and the heroic, damn-the-torpedoes efforts of her many star struck fans to adjudicate Sarah "right"! even when she is, well..."wrong"!

Joel J. Miller at National Review Online nails it.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Let's give it a rest already.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:37am.

Look: Sarah Palin was speaking casually, not in an interview, but while doing something else, in a queue or something. Instead of saying "Paul Revere warned the colonists about the British," her brain skipped ahead to the last part of the sentence, and thus said "Paul Revere warned the British."

The left and the media -- but I repeat myself -- is going bananas over this. Here's what they postulate: Sarah Palin, former mayor, former governor, former nominee for vice president, didn't know that Paul Revere's mission was to warn the colonists of a coming British attack.

I can barely get more than a mumble out of you when you are in line to get a bottle of Cisco and a pack of Pall Malls. Le'ts see how intelligent you are about the story of  Vice Admiral Willis A. Lee, Jr. next time I shove a camera in your face while you are in line at McDonalds trying to get a hot cup of joe to cut through that skull banging hangover headache you get from your precious Cisco and tell you to get the hell out of the way, I'm coming through.

You and I don't harp on the 57 states thing. We are better than that. Let's leave the whining to the MSM and Binky Braveheart with his code pink panties and t-shirt.

Hey, give me a swig of that sweet sweet sweet sugary poultry poop tasting rotgut of yours. I am in a rotten mood today.

Cisco - the preferred drink of history perfessers and grouchy trolljegeren worldwide.

  • Login to post comments

Jer's Glue Factory, Part III.

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:03am.

Take the Vet's advice, wontcha?

  • Login to post comments

For pete's sake, guys [Vet and SoL]...

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 5:59pm.

Other than a single remark on this thread, my ONLY posts on the subject were a handful of comments/replies on ONE Palin thread (Rich Noyes: Brian Williams/Palin's botched history... June 4) in the first of which I noted Sarah's was a minor gaffe far less egregious than many committed by Obama and Biden and pointed out the double standard applied by the media to Palin.

For THAT, I deserve to be lectured about the need to "give it a rest"?

You both know I like you.  But I don't try to dictate the nature and number of your posts and I hope you'll extend me the same courtesy--or at least put your advice in a PM.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Yes, Jer, but if we don't nip this in the bud now,

Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:08pm.

you may turn into a monster.

  • Login to post comments

Well, now, that puts things in a different light...

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:24pm.

knowing you were acting only out of a sincere concern for my physical and psychological well-being.

[But please turn away while I risk a couple of obligatory replies below.]

Jer

  • Login to post comments

My heart aches.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:45pm.

I couched my post. Did you not see the "let's". And I was sufficiently jokey to let you know I would be all jokey and stuff. Oh and one was enough. I am saying you and I and the other semi-intelligent people here know she either dropped some words or flubbed the back story. As one idiot troll here told us, she was answering a question - "What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?". You don't walk out of a museum and tell everyone what you already knew. You talk about what you learned. We know she is not stupid just as we know the President is not stupid. And we don't get partisan and say people of the other party are stupid just because we disagree with their politics. The MSM is on their third week not us.

All I was saying was you and I are better than the crypto-dummy. And not just because we don't love cop killers.

  • Login to post comments

Fair enough, Vet...

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:55pm.

I'm all better now. Hope you are, too.

U J

  • Login to post comments

I'm not.

Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 12:08am.

I got a whopper of a headache from that bum wine you gave me and my ears are still ringing from the 2 hour dissertation I got on Admiral Lee. Boy you get yacky on Cisco.

  • Login to post comments

C'mon, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:27pm.

You may be favored around here as a house lib, but damn, requesting PM's --- why, so your liberalness is not brought to the fore for all to see?

On a conservative site?

The tenor of 99% of your posts, despite your self-avowed claims of sticking it to the "bad" libs on a regular basis (on rare occasions would be more accurate), is slamming us conservatives for slamming liberals.

Gets a bit too hot in the kitchen, eh?

Who, exactly, were you thinking had not yet figured out you were a liberal?   :o)

You crack me up.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

That's right, Matthew...

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:53pm.

On the eve of my fourth anniversary here, I'm still desperately attempting to conceal my "liberalness".

Check your PMs. I'm sending you some "advice".

Jer

  • Login to post comments

→ Happy birthday, Jer

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:55pm.

Has it really been that long?

  • Login to post comments

Thanks, Cool...

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 7:07pm.

You were a semester ahead of me, so I always looked up to you.

At times it seems it was only yesterday, and then there are times I feel like I've been here most of my life.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

It's funny, despite the fact

Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:12am.

It's funny, despite the fact that she has been proven right, all the left can come up with is "She didn't mean it that way! She just got lucky!"

How pathetic.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353

"In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”

If all you've got is "She got lucky!", then you have nothing I'm afraid.

  • Login to post comments

NC Cop...

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 7:16pm.

From the positioning of your response, it appears to be addressed to me. But the content has very little to do with what I posted.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Great "guess" by Palin I guess

Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:26am.

Christ Jer, the stumbling and bumbling reference, I thought for the first time in months you were going to make a lucid point and talk about the Democrats.

Nah, you are just being Jer.

If you make poverty easy, you will have more of it. Benjamin Franklin
  • Login to post comments

Tomorama...

Submitted by Jer on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:42pm.

You mean "Democrats" like Obama and Biden for instance?  Okay...

"....That said, it's not that big of a deal--Obama and Biden have both made far more blatantly boneheaded comments and embarrassing gaffes--and the disparate media reactions [tepid or nonexistent] regarding those blunders compared to their demonstrable zeal in exposing every Palin misstep is a legitimate complaint to be made by her supporters."

Jer

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2011/06/04/nbc-s-williams-smugly...

 

If you are going to criticize me, you should at least get your facts in order before doing so.  Or, you can just continue to be Tomorama being Tomorama.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

So, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 7:11pm.

is it that we conservatives just haven't correctly figured out the liberal "balance sheet" as promulgated by Jer?

" If a liberal says something good about a conservative; or something bad about a liberal, this will in fact be the opposite of the "Aw, shit" factor wherein one "Aw shit" cancels out a thousand "attaboys."

In the lib universe, one attaboy (awarded by the lib himself, to himself ) for minimally praising a conservative, or minimally poor-mouthing a liberal, shall, in effect, cancel out a thousand "Aw shit" instances of slamming, (1) a conservative, (2) a conservative policy, or (3) complaining about lack of recognition for not doing either numbers 1 or 2."

Cheers.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

That National Review piece is

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:49am.

That National Review piece is about as good a summation of the situation as anyone has offered. It's worth noting that Palin, in "clarifying" her remarks, also continued to maintain that it was Revere's mission to warn the British (it wasn't, and he never fired the first shot or rang the first bell to warn either them or the colonists), and flatly lied about the question that initially prompted her bout of verbal diarrhea, characterizing it as "a shout-out, gotcha type of question." The actual question: "What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?"

I'm not sure if Palin is her own worst enemy, or if it's her fans, who were as completely wrong as she, yet have kept dogging it and making it news.

  • Login to post comments

"That National Review piece

Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:56am.

"That National Review piece is about as good a summation of the situation as anyone has offered."

Well of course it is, because you agree with it. If you want to continue to ignore all the other history experts who are saying Palin was right, that's fine and quite expected. However, just because you refuse to acknowledge it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

  • Login to post comments

Palin asserted that it was

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:25am.

Palin asserted that it was part of the mission of Paul Revere's midnight ride to warn the British, and that he did this by firing warning shots and ringing bells. We don't have to turn to experts for this, but if we must, no expert can say any of those things are correct. The assertions that Palin "got it right" are, just as that National Review piece said, based on willfully ignoring what she actually said. Someone somewhere fired a shot, someone somewhere rang a bell, and "Presto!" That means Palin was correct.

Except, of course, that it doesn't.

  • Login to post comments

I heard her say you were a disgraced partisan hack liar.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:28am.

Go away troll. You had one chance. You chose to lie to us instead of trying to act like you had some sense of ethics.

  • Login to post comments

So what you're saying is that

Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:30am.

So what you're saying is that my source is wrong, but yours is right?

Got it.

  • Login to post comments

"Got it." No, it's painfully

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:15pm.

"Got it."

No, it's painfully clear that you most definitely do not. Palin's claims have no basis in the historical record. None. At all. Your "sources" can say they do, but the one thing they can't do is cite anything in that record that actually supports her. What they--and all of her supporters on this point--have done is exactly what I said: Ignore what she actually said.

  • Login to post comments

classicliberal

Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:33pm.

From a source you should approve of, NPR:
BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She's not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comment...

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

I acknowledge that you have

Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:37pm.

I acknowledge that you have full blown PDS and no matter what is said or proven you will not be swayed. Sadly, for you, there are those who say Palin was right and have already stated the reasons why. You just refuse to listen.

I hope you get some professional help.

  • Login to post comments

I forgot to mention how

Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:36pm.

I forgot to mention how ironic it is that a proven liar like classicliberal is calling someone else a liar.

Beautiful!!!!

  • Login to post comments

So what you're saying is that

Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:30am.

So what you're saying is that my source is wrong, but yours is right?

Got it.

  • Login to post comments

Mass PDS

Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:34am.

Its driving Libs everywhere crazy that Palin was right.

 

   /// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 ///    خال

  • Login to post comments

Oh we will take the word of a proven political hack liar.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:25am.

What part of disgraced here on this site escapes you?

classicLyingLiberal2: None of the public money that goes to Planned Parenthood is spent on abortion; it goes to the 97% of other...
 

Yes. They put it in a separate little bucket. Don't they? Except you won't allow that for the Chamber of Commerce. Will you?


classicLyingLiberal2: It is a fact that the Chamber takes money from foreign sources, and it's a fact that this same money goes into the same fund that was paying for...


Partisan hack LIAR.

  • Login to post comments

Like so many of the other

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:51pm.

Like so many of the other posters, here, you have your insults down pat, but little else. To clear up your confusion regarding your attempted smear, Planned Parenthood doesn't spend any public money on abortions (which are paid for by those who receive them). By law, it has to account for where its money comes from and where it goes. My comments with regard to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had to do with its efforts to manipulate the election process via HUGE amounts of money that, because of a mess the Supreme Court made of the previously established law, didn't face any disclosure requirements at all. This happened while the Chamber was, by its own admission, taking foreign money and doling that campaign cash out of the same bucket in which it was being placed. Even without the foreign money component, though (which I never thought was particularly important), this is a huge problem, and something any responsible citizen or journalist of any political stripe would automatically question. Huge amounts of money of totally unknown origin manipulating our political process. You don't have to know anything else about it to know that is a scandal. With Planned Parenthood, the only scandal is the current attack on the organization (by legislators who either know better or would know better if they spent five minutes to actually learn something about the thing about which they were ranting).

Now, you can knock off the slander, apologize, and stop trying to change the subject. But as that would be the honorable course, I don't really expect you to do any of it.

  • Login to post comments

Like so many of the other trolls here

Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 2:46pm.

you are a hit and run poster. As soon as you are proven wrong you either deny it, or flee the thread.

You needn't talk to someone else about taking the honorable course since you refuse to do so.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Now THAT is how to---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:34pm.

politely, but firmly, put a troll in it's place.

No bad words.

Gonna have to study on how to do that.   :o)

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

clib2, HUGE money.. 100 grand.... ROTFLMAO.

Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 3:05pm.

Collectively, AmChams pay nominal dues to the Chamber – approximately $100,000 total across all 115 AmChams.

Myth: The U.S. Chamber is spending foreign money on political activities.

Fact: The U.S. Chamber fully complies with all applicable laws and regulations. No foreign money is used to fund political activities.

NOTE: From now on I will use as many National Review links as possible, just for you.

Chamber harks back to a 2008 controversy over alleged foreign donors to Obama’s presidential campaign.

It’s remarkable that incumbent members of Congress and their supporters, egged on by the president of the United States, would demand criminal and civil investigations of their political opponents on the basis of an uncorroborated blog post.

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

Ignored by the partisan hack liar.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:47pm.

But he already knew that. It came out when the story first broke. He would rather stick with his partisan hack lies and demand apologies when his partisan hack hypocrisy is exposed.

  • Login to post comments

Correct Vet, Shallowlib2,standard frittering N' spewage, program

Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 12:28am.

So many new threads to hose, so little time.

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

"HUGE money.. 100 grand....

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:25pm.

"HUGE money.. 100 grand.... ROTFLMAO."

Actually, they spent $75 million--more on the election than any other outside group (and I doubt your crude effort at sleight-of-hand, there, fooled anyone). The source of most of this doesn't, under existing law, have to be disclosed. That's a scandal, and it needs to change. Without that change--which, surprise, surprise, the Chamber has lobbied to defeat--they and an infinity of similar groups can take money from wherever they like. They can deny there's any foreign money, but we have only their word for it that there isn't--they don't have to account for its source. As I've noted at every turn, though, the foreign money angle wasn't the important part of that story. Huge sums of money were being spent to manipulate the electoral process--more, in many cases, than was being spent by the candidates and parties--and we have no idea where it's coming from. No responsible citizen can find that acceptable, and, in fact, if it wasn't the Republicans benefiting from this corruption, everyone on this site would become responsible citizens on this point.

  • Login to post comments

What a pitiful, pitiful, pitiful---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:45pm.

pos you are.

Believing the BS you post doesn't make it true; posting the same crap over and over doesn't make it true; and continually painting either conservatives or the GOP as being responsible for chicanery merely underscores how flimsy and unsupportable your purported 'reasoning' is. 

Your CDS is most apparent.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

We joke about troll's sharing the same brain.

Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 12:13am.

But here we have a troll doing exactly what every other troll does. You point out their lies. They think you want to discuss the lie for the next 2 days. Every single troll. And every single troll thinks getting busted in a lie is just that. They got busted in a lie here, on this subject. No reason not to believe they are lying about anything else. Nah. It was just there on that subject. Stupid monkeypeople will swallow anything.

  • Login to post comments

"But here we have a troll

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 1:05am.

"But here we have a troll doing exactly what every other troll does. You point out their lies. They think you want to discuss the lie for the next 2 days. Every single troll."

That's quite a fanciful interpretation of what's just happened. The matters of Planned Parenthood and of the Chamber of Commerce have nothing whatsoever to do with one another, and neither has anything to do with this thread, which is about coverage of Sarah Palin's mangling of history. You call me a troll, and use, as your basis for this, the assertion that I'm the one who wants to discuss these unrelated matters when anyone reading this exchange can scroll up a few posts and see that it was you, and not I, who brought them into this thread. They can go to the other threads about those individual subjects, from days ago--you and not I being the one who seems to want to dwell on them--and see that what you're calling a "lie" on my part is actually a complete misrepresentation on yours. Dimmer bulbs here may make a show of rallying around you, but do you think anyone who isn't a complete imbecile finds any legitimate merit in what you've done with this?

  • Login to post comments

Not discussing your lie troll. I am here to point it out.

Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 1:25am.

You really are not bright at all are you? You keep on pretending we have something to discuss with a known partisan hack liar. That is a lonely little brick road you are walking down. Oh look, a butterfly.

The itty bitty snitty troll committee meets on the 16th of every month. It is populated by 14 of the most powerful trolljegeren in the country. If you feel you were wrongly chastised by a trolljegeren, take it up with them. Hurry , all troll whines must be submitted at least 3 business days before the committee meets.

  • Login to post comments

cl2

Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:17pm.

Huge money being spent to manipulate the electoral process, you are talking about Obama aren't you? Mr Transparency, but not so much. http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Obama-fundraising-illegal/2008/09/29/id/...

No, I don't expect you to respond because you continue to ignore any evidence to the contrary of your lib talking points. Obama has got to be the most corrupt politician we've ever had in this country, and I honestly didn't think that anyone would out do the Clinton's in slime, but he sure has.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

lib2, So NOW foreign money not an issue.

Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 1:21am.

As I've noted at every turn, though, the foreign money angle wasn't the important part of that story

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/48061/1502234#ixzz1OkhKrzlT

Slippery posts all by you...

This happened while the Chamber was, by its own admission, taking foreign money and doling that campaign cash out of the same bucket in which it was being placed.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2011/06/07/third-straight-weekni...

The Vet got this one, linked already, er it's in a different post...

They can deny there's any foreign money, but we have only their word for it that there isn't--they don't have to account for its source.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2011/06/07/third-straight-weekni...

Just an FYI those NB links... well you will need to scroll a bit, HINT: stick 'foreign" in the find box. so if you are interested in what you hurl, then explain the latest, ya spewage monger.

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

No, I've said, from my first

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 4:17am.

No, I've said, from my first post on the subject, that the foreign money angle wasn't the big part of the story. Huge amounts of money from undisclosed sources is. That some of what the Chamber was spending last year could credibly have been foreign money only underlines this. It requires the same utter lack of reading comprehension skills as Palin's defenders have displayed throughout this thread to assert I've either made foreign money the central complaint in this matter, or have backed away from that.

  • Login to post comments

Well troll-face---

Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 4:55am.

By my calculation, you have about lebenty-leben more shots at convincing us conservatives that you are in actuality the bearer of the troof, the whole troof, and nothing but the troof.   

That possibility is heavily predicated on the premise that while conservatives do indeed lack basic  reading comprehension skills, you, in your inimitable way, shall somehow break us free from those particular mind cramping chains.

Hurry though, as you only have until November, 2012, to accomplish your mission as per the Messiah's orders - if you cannot convince us to convert, he may well be one and done.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

The sourceless troll forgets the old adage.

Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 8:48am.

  When you find yourself in a hole, first stop digging.

Anyone else notice the partisan hack troll utter failure to source his lies? And yes, we know they are lies because it was covered HERE at this site.

Mark Shields: White House Made Up Chamber of Commerce Foreign Money Story

Media Expand Left-Wing Attack on Chamber of Commerce over 'Foreign' Contributions

Media Parrot Far-left Blog's Smear Campaign Against Chamber of Commerce, Ignore Identical Activities by Unions

What is it like partisan hack liar classiclyingliberal2? Losing all shreds of credibility. Other than the 25 time retread troll, we don't see that all too often. You are done here. This will not stop following you.

  • Login to post comments

cltroll

Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 12:35pm.

Keep running away from the posts that prove you wrong eh? Must be kind of scary having to keep running under that troll bridge EVERY time someone here proves you wrong.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

As usual...

Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:44am.

Brian, 'Ol boy! You try to look smart, not working.... you're still a dumbass and come off as exactly that, give it up already! Sarah was right, you were and still are wrong, and a dumbass! Maybe it's time to retire, we won't miss ya.

Same as it ever was....

P.S. Hi Sue! Glad to see ya back! Stick around, always good to see ya! ; )

_____________________________________________________________ I'm not too drunk to dance! It's just that people keep stepping on my hands!
  • Login to post comments

Personally, I think...

Submitted by LastKnownOne on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:17am.

Personally, I think that Sarah Palin says those things exactly the way she wants to. She knows she is correct and the stupid lame stream media pounces on these things without looking into them first. She intelligently baits them at every turn. As usual, it turns out that the LSM has egg on their face.
Maybe if the so called LSM journalists actually did some research, they wouldn't look so stupid all of the time, but then again, they are liberals and can't help it. Liberals are just like alcoholics that don't yet realize they are alcoholics. Liberals even tend to hate being called liberals just like alcoholics hate being called alocholics.

  • Login to post comments

Once again the lefty MSM displays its ignorance of history

Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 9:42am.

But what else would you expect from people who are totally in love with stoopid teacher's union goons?

-Dave

Vote for the American in November

  • Login to post comments

Where's the coverage of the liberals and their stupidity.

Submitted by grumpyoldb on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:18am.

I f they are going to blow this out of proportion, where was all the coverage when Obama had problems telling the difference between a window and a door in the rose garden... There are a lot more examples just of our feerless leader, but then again, I'd die of old age if I spent the time typing them all in.

So Palin made a mistake, big deal... but by the way, Paul Revere did act as a go between passing secret messages to other revolutionaries, as did many other promenent citizens of the time.... Gee.. I wonder if that would make him a messenger...

  • Login to post comments

Sara stepin on toes for the thrill of it.

Submitted by tombaker on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 3:38pm.

Sara is proclaiming she is having a blast stepping on the toes of the media, as she goes about some sort of self-centered bus tour.

Palin said she was set up by the question, it was a gotcha question, it was her first reaction until she dug in.  If she thinks she was set up, what does that tell you about the answer? 
When did being a conservative mean you need to be a lemming.

  • Login to post comments

Right by accident, eh, tomb

Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 06/09/2011 - 4:16pm.

Did you just run off that cliff with THIS sign in your hands....

  •   RIGHT
  •     BY
  • ACCIDENT.

Trollamus Repeatamus

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

upcountry---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 12:39am.

Knowin' ol' tom Trollamus Repeatamus baker will show up to try and crap on Palin is as sure as death and taxes, eh?

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Now Janet-2 was Right By Accident. @ underwear bomber

Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 1:06am.

Right by Accident. A Classic example.

What are the odds of that ?

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • DOJ targeted more Fox News reporters than Rosen (Twitchy)
  • WashPost vs. WashPost on IRS probe (Ed Morrissey)
  • Media too prone to fall sway to Obama's referrent power (Salena Zito)
  • Five reasons to keep government out of Internet governance (Eli Dourado)
  • Is asking about what you pray for inappropriate for IRS? IRS commish not sure (Say Anything)
  • Another fed court invalidates Obama's NRLB recess appointments (Politico)
  • Former SecState Hillary Clinton's record leaves much to be desired (Kondracke)
  • Sen. Boxer is lying about impact of budget cuts on Benghazi security (WashPost)
  • Left-wing actor Cusack attacks Obama, Holder over AP scandal (Twitchy)
  • Dopey Chicago gun laws prevent museum from displaying unloaded WW2 relic (Fox News)
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
David Limbaugh's picture
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh Column: Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: An Honest Examination of Race
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

ObamaCare's a Real Pain in the Neck
more cartoons
  • Morning Joe Meteorologist: Tornado Averted 'By The Grace of Whatever'
  • Bowling for Dollars....to Pay for Baby Deaths
  • Leno: It’s Gotten So Bad for Obama Fox News Changed Its Slogan to ‘See, I Told You So!’
  • Romney: ‘I’m Not a Fan of the President’
  • The Guardian Glamorizes New ‘Assault on Wall Street’ Movie as Justice
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use