Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Palin Fans Deface Paul Revere Wikipedia Page

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-can't-make-this-up dept.

Wikipedia 767

An anonymous reader writes "Fans of Sarah Palin were found to be changing the article on Paul Revere to make it fit their idol's view that Paul Revere was not warning the American colonists that the British were coming, but rather warning the British were not 'going to taking away our [guns]'."

cancel ×

767 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

roman_mir, perhaps? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349790)

"going to taking away our [guns]'"

Sounds like a Palinite OK.

Link to Wikipedia (-1)

rwv (1636355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349804)

Paul Revere [wikipedia.org] page. Presently (using "Find on Page" techniques) it says nothing about the vandalism described.

Re:Link to Wikipedia (4, Informative)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349854)

There's stuff about it on the discussion page [wikipedia.org]

Re:Link to Wikipedia (4, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349858)

Why don't you check the revision history [wikipedia.org] ? Find on page? Really?

Re:Link to Wikipedia (1, Informative)

rwv (1636355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349986)

This seems to be one of the offending edits [wikipedia.org] . The point earlier was that any edits had been cleaned up by the mob. Wikipedia is working. Order has been restored to the galaxy.

Re: Find of page? Really? -- Do you know a better way of describing the menu that pops up when you type "/" in Firefox (or Vi, which is where the keystroke originates)? Instead of reading the whole page, I did this quick search for a target word "gun" and found no references to any of Palin's antics.

Re:Link to Wikipedia (4, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350036)

It's not about describing what you did, it's about how silly what you did was. All the information you want is in the discussion page, obviously. That's what it's there for.

Re:Link to Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350046)

The issue was not with your use of the term "Find on Page", it was that you somehow expected your search to return some sort of worthwhile result. It seems pretty obvious that if the vandalism has reached the news, it's long since been corrected on Wikipedia. If you want to see the vandalism, look at the fucking revision history. If you want to see the debate, read the talk page. If you want a quick summary of what happened, RTFA.

Re:Link to Wikipedia (2)

Ross R. Smith (2225686) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349902)

The title to the linked article is 'Palin Fans Trying to Edit Wikipedia Paul Revere Page'
Being fans of Palin it is perfectly understandable and likely they got confused and gave up.

hey editor guy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349814)

Hey editor guy, howsabout you give us a tiny bit more background information on what's going on. Like maybe mentioning where this Palin revisionism started? Was it a speech she gave? An interview? Her blog or Twitter account?

Re:hey editor guy! (2, Informative)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349906)

It was a speech. IIRC there are some articles on Gawker about it and her subsequent attempts to justify her historical fiction of the event.

Either way I agree with some of the posts on Gawker, concerned for her brain damage, as most people would be embarrassed by such gaffes, but she seems to have no shame.

One of the comedians or shows (can't remember which) had a fake Palin for 2012 Republican Nomination ad, with "Paid for by Barack Obama" line at the end... This kind of thing of gaffe on her part just reemphasizes the funny...

Re:hey editor guy! (2, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349914)

that moron said that paul revere was warning not the americans (or colonials) but british.

Re:hey editor guy! (3, Informative)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349960)

You do realize that Paul Revere was captured on his ride and did warn the British that they would not be able to take away the colonists' guns?

Re:hey editor guy! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350078)

EXACTLY! He also told them he could see Russia from his house and that pi was equal to three. God bless conservative truth!

Re:hey editor guy! (2, Insightful)

rbollinger (1922546) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350206)

You also know that Palin never said she could see Russia from her house right? It was just an SNL Skit.

Actual quote from Palin: "They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."

I'm no fan of Palin but please try to separate her real gaffes from the ones the media made up.

Re:hey editor guy! (3, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350130)

But that was not the purpose of his ride, which Palin claimed. She's retarded. Absolutely retarded.

Re:hey editor guy! (2)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350008)

Palin was wrong, no doubt, but that characterization is also misleading... she didn't say Revere was "warning the British," she said he was "warning the British that they're not going to be taking away our arms." She wasn't characterizing Revere as a British sympathizer.

Not that she wasn't wrong... she was... I would like to think that republicans are smart enough NOT to make her the GOP candidate, but there's so many people trying that a split vote could lead to someone like Palin winning the nomination... and the democrats would rejoice.

Re:hey editor guy! (3, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350294)

I don't have enough faith in humanity to assume that Palin winning the primary would be enough to get a democrat into the white house in 2012.

Re:hey editor guy! (3, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350204)

that moron said that paul revere was warning not the americans (or colonials) but british.

From The Boston Herald [bostonherald.com] :

Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.

and

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.”

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

and

Meanwhile, the state’s Democratic Party held a thin blue line on the issue, insisting on mocking Palin despite a brief historical review of the matter. State party chairman John Walsh wise-cracked that the region welcomes all tourists, even those with “an alternative view of history.”

“If you believe he was riding through the countryside sending text messages and Tweets to the British, still come to Boston,” he said. “There are a lot of things to do and see.”

But Cornell law professor William Jacobson, who asserted last week that Palin was correct, linking to Revere quotes on his conservative blog Legalinsurrection.com, said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”

I believe that last statement could refer to you. You should be careful of who you call "moron". You know the old saying about glass houses, right?

how they know (2, Insightful)

Yorban (1442959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349820)

how they no it was sarah palin "fans"? could have been opposite

Re:how they know (2, Interesting)

ICLKennyG (899257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349894)

I agree. the internet loves it's Irony. My money is on her fans not having computers or not being able to use them other than to type drudgereport.com

Re:how they know (-1, Troll)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350298)

WoW! I never realized people like you existed. You are perfect. Everyone who disagrees with you is a Moron. If only more people thought exactly like you we could solve the world's problems. Yes, everyone associated with Sarah Palin really is a complete fricking moron who can barely put on a pair of non matching shoes, let alone type. Yes, editing wikipedia is an extremely hard task, that only the most enlightened liberals such as yourself are able to carry out. I am guessing from your rightfully condensending tone that you are a graduate of some Ivory league university someplace in the Northeast. (if not it is Harvard's loss).

You pretty much have the world figured out. Are you going to be writing any books explaining your philosophy for the benefit of people-kind (don't want to be sexist) anytime soon. I hope so, and can't wait to get my copy.

Re:how they know (2, Insightful)

flyingkillerrobots (1865630) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349898)

Mod parent up. That was my first instinct as well.

Re:how they know (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350146)

Because they're too busy screwing up W's legacy.

Re:how they know (2)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349916)

That's what I was thinking. It's an easy way to discredit someone. Jump onto an anonymous service like Wikipedia, make a bunch of dumb edits, then claim it is on the behalf of someone you want to make look bad.

Re:how they know (5, Funny)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349928)

I'm guessing you're a fan...In fact, you may actually be her, judging by your meticulous grammar and extraordinary vocabulary.

+1 Funny (0)

Comboman (895500) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350134)

Wish I had mod points today.

Re:how they know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349940)

Well, while "fan" is used commonly to mean someone who likes another person, it actually means fanatic. Since a fanatic could be both someone fervently in favour of or against Palin, it makes more sense to say fans are responsible for the edits, as the opposite of a fanatic would be someone who didn't care and such a person would be unlikely to be involved in an edit war on the subject.

Re:how they know (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349984)

There's even a third option: Trolls with no strong feelings toward or against her that are doing it just for laughs.

Re:how they know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350188)

There's even a third option: Trolls with no strong feelings toward or against her that are doing it just for teh lullz.

FTFY

Re:how they know (5, Informative)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350092)

From reading, it appears that based on the edit history, the same people trying to edit the Revere page are frequent (positive) contributors to the Palin page.

Re:how they know (2)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350180)

Fans of Palin, opponents of Palin looking to screw with her reputation, trolls who think this is funny, random lunatics... could be any or all of the above.

Anyone who tries to score political points based on anonymous Wiki edits is as big an idiot as Palin herself.

Re:how they know (1)

poity (465672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350242)

I agree. Articles related to hot topics are defaced all the time, and I'd expect people who got a kick from spreading the "truthiness" meme to also get a kick from messing up a historical account for further lulz, as much as any Palin supporter. And face it, sweat from sometimes biased and often uptight wikipedia editors is sweet nectar for trolls. It doesn't seem like anyone can know the true motives of an anonymous vandal.

Palin and Herstory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349826)

to be a supporter of Sarah is a brainer, if you had a brain you would not be a supporter.

Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (4, Insightful)

kalpol (714519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349830)

because, seriously. Wikipedia is not the reference to end all references. If some dummy changes it and it's wrong, either someone will change it back, or (hopefully) the avalanche of other sources on Paul Revere will remain correct.

Re:Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (5, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349952)

Or perhaps Paul Revere himself will change to conform to Wikireality.

Who among us hasn't heard the story of his famous Midnight Ride, where he rode up to the British screaming "You're coming! You're coming!"?

Re:Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (2)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350038)

I think I saw this once on a movie, I believe it was called the Sexual Revolutionary War. Starring Seka and Rocco Siffredi.

Re:Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (2)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350260)

Are you sure it wasn't in the movie "Up Paul's Revere" ?

Re:Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (0)

john82 (68332) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350172)

Perhaps you should go back and study American history. You've only been paying attention to half the story. Revere warned the colonists, but when captured by the British he also warned them that the colonists were ready to face them.

Boston Herald

Re:Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (0)

john82 (68332) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350184)

"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."

Boston Herald [bostonherald.com]

Re:Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350110)

Mouseover; see littlegreenfootballs; ignore

You mean the same way conservatives do when they see salon, huffington post, msnbc, etc... Seems that the phrase "preaching to the choir" comes to mind here.

Uhhhh? (2, Insightful)

gregarican (694358) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349836)

Besides the poor English in the summary if you check Wikipedia's history for this entry you probably won't find much to indicate what is claimed...hmmm...act reactionary very much?

Re:Uhhhh? (2)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350086)

Personally I think poor grammar and inverted senses in a summary article about anything Palin related is entirely appropriate. In fact, one would be remiss not to not muddle the metaphoricals and mix the waters when that to which refer is being discussed.

Dubious... (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349838)

I find it hard to believe... on the one hand, out of millions of idiots, it seems that sure that a few could go off the edge and completely sink their own candidates campaign (not that it's even started yet).

It seems more likely that there are people out there to make supporters look bad... not that they need a lot of help. Palin herself was out defending what she said as being "accurate."

I'd believe either way.

I still don't even know why Palin is news.

Re:Dubious... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349876)

I find it hard to believe... on the one hand, out of millions of idiots, it seems that sure that a few could go off the edge and completely sink their own candidates campaign (not that it's even started yet).

This sort of thing happens on both sides. And I think it really DOES happen. The down side of making Wikipedia easy to edit is that it's easy to edit.

Re:Dubious... (2)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350042)

Good points... the sad part is that wikipedia is actually a very good reference when looking up non-political stuff (and even most political stuff). But then incidents like this make it look like you can't trust it at all.

Re:Dubious... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350106)

At least this LOOKED like a bad edit. It's the sneaky ones that bother me, not the "BOB AND JOE RULE AND ARE THE BEST"

Re:Dubious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349896)

The same reason Snooki is news. Everyone likes having someone to feel superior too.

Re:Dubious... (2)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350246)

Granted, but do we need to feel quite so superior?

Re:Dubious... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350138)

Howard Dean did it... to himself.

Re:Dubious... (0)

Palshife (60519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350142)

You know why Palin is news, but that seems to be the part of the discussion nobody wants to have; why a nobody idiot quitter from Alaska should be getting paid to ride around on a bus spouting nonsense. Publicly denounce her employer, News Corp. Without them, she's just a jobless nobody.

Re:Dubious... (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350290)

Actually right now she is blowing PAC money from donations to drive around and being an media whore. IT's the idiots that donated money to her that are flitting the bill, not News Corp .

Hilariously orwellian (5, Interesting)

Nimatek (1836530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349850)

Unfortunately those fans don't seem to read books. The 1984 parallel of editing the past to fit the political 'truth' of the moment is lost on them.

Re:Hilariously orwellian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349978)

Posting AC so I don't undo mods. Welcome to the world of history. That goes on all the time. Many historians interpret past events in light of current events. I've found some historians who manage to not do this much but many others do. What might or might not be occurring on Wikipedia is no less revisionist as what occurs frequently within the hallowed walls and covers of academia and publishing, respectively.

Orwell only really applies if it is the government rewriting history (or people doing it for the government's benefit).

Re:Hilariously orwellian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350068)

That sort of depends on how you define "government" - the rules are changing; what with MS buying themselves ISO certifications, Apple's walled gardens and FB's pretty unambiguous power grabs: a "government" may or may not be based on a country.

Re:Hilariously orwellian (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350018)

On the plus side, I'm pretty sure that 1984 didn't have versioning... It would, of course, be ideal for the correct writeup to always be on the default page; but editing is so much less sinister when changes never go down the memory hole...

Re:Hilariously orwellian (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350064)

LOL. There's nothing Orwellian about this. I'm nearly certain Palin has no ulterior motive here. She's not trying to rewrite history on purpose. She did it accidentally due to stupidity. She knew a few vague details about a story and simply filled in the gaps with the first thing to come to her mind. I see people do this sort of thing all the time. The difference is, for some reason, this moron gets a media spotlight to show off her ignorance to the entire world instead of just the 3 people that happen to be standing around at the time.

Re:Hilariously orwellian (1, Insightful)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350174)

That's only one step worse than most Slashdot readers, who apparently have only read one book.

I won't keep you in suspense. It's 1984. Although a few real bookworms have also read Atlas Shrugged.

Re:Hilariously orwellian (3, Interesting)

Zephyn (415698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350192)

“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - Doctor Who

Re:Hilariously orwellian (0)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350278)

1984 never imagined a state of happy, healthy, nourished, and fattened citizens living out the proletariat dream by shouting Orwellian slogans with hotdogs in their hands.

What are they doing on Wikipedia? (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349856)

Don't they know that Conservapedia [conservapedia.com] is their home on the internet, free of the lies and corruption of the liberal filth?

Re:What are they doing on Wikipedia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350158)

...where the editors manage to out-stupid Palin:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Paul_Revere&diff=875976&oldid=875973 [conservapedia.com]

Re:What are they doing on Wikipedia? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350226)

Impressive, most impressive, given that the constitution wouldn't exist for a substantial period of time thereafter...

I think my favorite example of just how far off the rails they are has got to be their "Conservative Bible Project".

bout time someone put the shutup on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349864)

is it not about time someone put the STFU on this Palin thing nothing but a mouth piece on legs

Supporters? (2, Insightful)

ogar572 (531320) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349880)

I have $20 that says it was opponents that did this. Why? Because this is how politics is played.

Re:Supporters? (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350040)

And, Palin fans knowing this.... .

Ad infinitum

Bert

Yellow Journalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349886)

CmdrTaco,

Please show us the evidence that this was done by Palin fans and wasn't just a false-flag edit war designed to make Palin supporters look bad. (Not that they need much help in that department though.)

Re:Yellow Journalism (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349954)

Yeah, this is a completely transparent joe-job. As if Palin fans were smart enough to find Wikipedia, let alone edit it.

Re:Yellow Journalism (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350202)

It all started going down hill when AOL effectively folded and they were allowed directly onto the net...

No. Not really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349918)

I'm no Palin fan, but this theory doesn't pass the sniff test. It is more likely her enemies seeking (needlessly) to cause more reason for scorn.

Re:No. Not really. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350066)

Why doesn't it pass the sniff test? There are idiots of every political persuasion; some of them are Palin fans who might have thoughT to change Wikipedia's article to their version of the "truth". We don't know for a fact that they are her fans. Perhaps the headline should have been less definite about that.

Re:No. Not really. (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350240)

On the one hand, it's possibly Palin supporters who are trying to promote Palin's mistakes. This makes Palin look stupid. On the other hand, it's possibly Palin detractors who are trying to publicize Palin's statements. That makes Palin look stupid.

Whoever is doing the edits, one thing is clear. Palin's statements make her look stupid.

i've only been around for 23 years.... (4, Interesting)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349936)

Have politics ever really focused on social issues, rather than the people(be they bonehead or genius) who support or dismiss them?

Re:i've only been around for 23 years.... (2)

aujus3 (2119090) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350196)

It used to be focused on policy. And it will be again, but only when all the dupes (i.e. the vast majority of Americans, myself included for a time) realize that both major parties who trade power back and forth have frighteningly similar agendas when you ignore what they say and examine what they actually do. There are too few who honestly examine policies while keeping social red herrings at a minimum (Ron Paul being my personal favorite for now), and far too few voters in the country who understand what's at stake. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin

Somewhere Democrats are praying she runs (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349946)

If Palin runs, it'll be a double edged sword. Most of her base will vote for her and dilute the vote. On the other hand if she wins, it will be bad. It's not so bad that people get things wrong; it's when they refuse to admit it in the face of evidence. That makes for a dangerous combination of people who have power.

Re:Somewhere Democrats are praying she runs (1)

domatic (1128127) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350006)

I doubt she would get the nomination. The Republicans appear to be looking for credible adults after the Trump and Gingrich debacles. Romney may not pass various ideological sniff tests but he is the first widely hyped candidate I've seen so far that doesn't come off like a retarded lunatic. I suspect they'll scare up a few more.

Re:Somewhere Democrats are praying she runs (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350268)

I agree with you on Trump; so far the only thing I see that Gingrich did was to disagree with majority Republican opinion. I guess he should have known better but I respect politicians who don't 100% agree with the party. However, I can't see how they would be able to get Gingrich past the morality vote with his history of infidelities.

Re:Somewhere Democrats are praying she runs (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350028)

True. Don't underestimate her drawing power. Americans have twice recently elected obvious fools for president (Reagan, Bush II). Admittedly Palin is worse than either of them, but it's clear that "patriotic stupid" is a potent political force among the voters.

The Romans had their Caligula and a series of clearly incompetent emperors. The Germans elected Hitler. There is plenty of precedent for the ascendancy of incredibly poor rulers.

Re:Somewhere Democrats are praying she runs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350062)

Never encourage support for an option you cannot abide.

Re:Somewhere Democrats are praying she runs (0, Troll)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350112)

She would win. Anyone with a "D" next to their name is toxic, radioactive to politics. Without going down the list of who started it and when, the fact is most American view the Democrats as owning this economic failure. Bush, if he could run a 3rd term might as well win the election.

Re:Somewhere Democrats are praying she runs (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350274)

You must live in Kansas if you believe any of that.

Re:Somewhere Democrats are praying she runs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350308)

Not even fucking close.

The Democrats may be in trouble, the the R's are in even deeper shit. People are already tired of the lying Rs and Teabaggers; and it hasn't even been 2 years.

Re:Somewhere Democrats are praying she runs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350200)

If Palin runs it will be bad for everyone. Her opponents will prevail despite issues that would preclude them from entering a normal race. It will seem like a victory at the time but the loss will be felt later.

Don't listen to the scaremongers who claim she has a chance at winning nomination/election :).

LittleGreenFootballs (1)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349972)

WTF!?

Last time i visited LGF it was on par with Free Republic crowd.

Palin was right (2, Informative)

geek (5680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349998)

Pretty funny how she's actually right yet people on the left still can't admit it and it all must be some big conspiracy
http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353 [bostonherald.com]

Re:Palin was right (2, Informative)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350010)

Re:Palin was right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350128)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

Re:Palin was right (4, Informative)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350162)

That article is about conservative apologists trying to backfit what she said into history. Paul Revere didn't fire gunshots and ring bells on his horse ride - that happened AFTER he was captured and gave inflated numbers to the British. His ride wasn't about warning the British - that was an unintentional side effect of getting capture. He rode to warn the militia and ultimately get to John Hancock and Sam Adams.

Even the experts in that article don't really back her up - they says she basically lucky that some part of the store could be backfitted to match what she said.

To be fair, I don't believe she is as dumb as she appears. I think she intentionally puts on that stupid accent and plays dumb to win over the fly-over states.

Re:Palin was right (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350216)

I love how she drives all you socialist losers crazy. Keep trying to knock her down. It makes your side look like the petty, angry little losers you are.

What? (2, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350052)

Palin actually has fans?
Maybe it's time to call in those Vogon construction ships after all.

She wins, regardless (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350080)

Palin camp simply draws more attention to themselves with this, regardless of how far from reality they are. They could have just as well said Revere made his ride on a Harley as the first member of Operation Rolling Thunder, it would have worked just as well for them.

I also enjoy that the "little green footballs" page has a link to buy a life-sized cardboard cutout of Palin. I didn't bother looking to see if you can order it as the bikini-automatic-weapon Palin, or if you have to order only the power-mini-skirt Palin.

"Trying like mad"? One guy made one change (2)

dredwolff (978347) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350114)

some guy using the name TimothyHorrigan made one change that was almost immediately reverted.

I'm no Palin supporter, but this isn't news, it's just sensationalism.

LA Times and Boston Herald say Palin was right (3, Informative)

Thursday (248391) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350148)

LA Times backs up Sarah Palin:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

And so does Boston Herald:

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

now my term paper's wrong (1)

a2wflc (705508) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350156)

Hope my prof will let me rewrite it with the new facts.

I'm voting for Shelley the Republican (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350166)

Hey CmdrTaco, I'm voting for Shelley the Republican [shelleytherepublican.com] ..

In Other News (1)

guttentag (313541) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350208)

Sarah Palin fans claim Paul Revere fans defaced Sarah Palin Wikipedia page, to fit the view that Sarah Palin ran for governor by supporting Alaska's federally-funded $442 million "Bridge to Nowhere," despite Palin's insistence to the contrary.

Stay tuned for an updated list of books Sarah Palin doesn't like that have no place in your library!

Patriots Defend Paul Revere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350272)

If she and her followers can do this to the life and legend of Paul Revere, just imagine what a Palin presidency would do to the Constitution of the United States.

Paul Revere's own words... (3, Informative)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350276)

You're all being more idiotic than Palin... Here's Revere alerting the British (though no mention or arms):

"I observed a wood at a small distance, and made for that. When I got there, out started six officers on horseback, and ordered me to dismount. One of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me where I came from and what my name was: I told him. He asked if I was an express: I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston: I told him; and added that their troops had catched aground in passing the river, and that there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the country all the way up." -Massachusetts Historical Society's Collections, First Series, Vol. V pp. 106ff.

The horror of it all! (4, Funny)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350300)

I just checked the Paul Revere page and there don't seem to be huge sections devoted to:

- Paul Revere in Animé.
- Paul Revere in Manga
- Paul Revere in Western Animation
- Paul Revere in Comics
- Paul Revere in Graphic Novels

Truly, an e-atrocity. I assume the Palinistas deleted them all.

Palin is a media virus (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350312)

Why do people pay so much attention to her? Her coverage is way out of proportion to her actual influence. Ignore Sarah Palin. If she polls highly, then go and cover her, but look:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rudy-giuliani-leads-republican-field-cnn-poll/ [outsidethebeltway.com]

Giuliani, Romney, Palin, Paul, Cain... 16%-10%

How much coverage is Giuliani or Romney getting? Paul or Cain? In proportion to Palin? Why is this also-ran attracting the same media attention as if Queen Elizabeth and the reanimated corpse of Michael Jackson and Xenu toured East Coast tourist spots?

It's bizarre. Palin is an also-ran. Please try to ignore this media virus.

Jeez... (2, Interesting)

rayvd (155635) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350320)

How the hell is this news for nerds? How many times has the Palin or Bush or Wikipedia pages been defaced? Don't recall it being trumpeted here...

At least a pretense of impartiality would be welcome...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>