Why We Repeat History

then there is Candidate Obama who claimed to have visited "57" states, with one to go, Alaska and Hawaii.

then there is President Obama who claimed the U.S. Constitution was "20" centuries old.

I just watched both statements on youtube.

doodle bug,

Don't you know that when a Liberal misspeaks it is a simple mistake that should be ignored. It is only when a Conservative misspeaks that the issue rises to the level of "outright lying" and rewriting history.

Studying history without the lens of authentic Christianity is worthless, unless you find yourself at a history teachers convention. We have seen throughout time the evil mankind has perpetuated amongst themselves. We have seen the mankind's lust for more destroy entire civilizations. We have seen mankind's lust for more drive themselves into debt, only to become slaves, as we still see it today. History will continue to repeat itself as long as man lusts for more.

dont you know that when a conservative misspeaks it is a simple mistake that should be ignored. It is only when a liberal misspeaks that the issue rises to the level of "outright lying" and rewriting history.

Michael - According to a history expert that was on NPR the other day, Sarah Palin was correct. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-pau...

She never mentioned anything about 2nd Amendment rights - that was all supposition. You should get your history right before you start picking other people's recounting of history apart.

That being said - what would you have the city of McCook, or the State of Nebraska for that matter, do with the remaining structures at the old Army air base? The structures were never designed or built to last as long as they have, the entire site is on private property and very well couldn't be maintained to the standards of the military for the sake of posterity. Does it trouble you that many anti-semitic groups around the world are denying that the holocaust took place? What is more important, an old runway in Nebraska or the plight of millions of innocent people?

All I have to say about Mickel's post is....Ouch.

Well played! You beat me to it.

Of course, I have heard many pundits say that Palin only lucked in to it, that she REALLY mispoke, but just happened to get lucky. I don't know what the truth would be, but some people would do anything to keep their safe worldview intact. Or, do anything to keep a woman down I guess. :)

It is shocking that Michael as a HISTORIAN would make that mistake. The media? Well they constantly make mistakes, especially about Arkansas. But historians? Surely mike would check his facts...

On April 19, 1775 the American Revolution really started, over a full year prior to the Declaration of Independence!

Now, King George had done a lot of things that distressed the colonists in America. But the final straw was "gun control". The British left Boston in force to "seize arms and ammuntion" stored by the colonists in Lexington and Concord, MA.

Arriving at Lexington, the British Captain ordered the colonists to throw down their arms. Somebody answered with "the shot heard 'round the world" and the battle was on. Arriving back in Boston, the regular British military troops had suffered 3 times the loss of life compared to the mostly untrained colonists.

We should celebrate on April 19th, rather than on July 4th, in my opinion!

It wasn't about tax on tea, or a stamp tax, or being forced to board British soldiers; even those were important concerns. It was about gun control, and confiscation of arms. You don't hear much about it in school.

Speaking of repeating history, how about the gun control movement taking place since the 1960s?

We even have a UN Small Arms Treaty being pushed now which would take away many of our rights under the Constitution. Sort of like the British coming down the road to disarm us, and make us slaves to the New World Order.

My history is right Mickel. None of what Patin said did happen can be verified. What is known is that Revere's ride was secretive and meant NOT to alert the British. So to go through towns shooting guns and ringing bells would have completely negated the mission.

There simply is no proof to back up Patin's claim.

To answer your question both are equally important.

doodle at least Obama apologized for his gaffe on the number of states.

Thank you Boomer62! The truth revealed.

o.k. an apology makes everything hunky dorey. Michael, I was with you one hundred percent until you brought individual personalities into it. Your penchant for digging at the individuals, who were never to be mentioned in your blogs again, is what brings out the desire in conservatives to dig back at you.

Boomer it was about all of those and more. To simply say that it was about "gun control" and not about other issues is to completely ignore history and in my opinion is absolutely shameful.

"My history is right Mickel"

I think everyone could learn a valuable lesson here. Michael Hendricks, soon to earn a Master's degree at Prestigious Arkansas Technical University knows more about history than anyone else. Certainly more than some right wing history professor who would go and spread lies about Sarah Palin being essentially correct on that right wing bastion: NPR.

Hilarious, even when people post support from an unlikely source, Michael still sticks to his "facts" that he has decided and refuses to support with any outside documentation.

Classic!

Michael's epic fail perhaps?

Uh, Michael, I did not "ignore" the other matters. I merely pointed out that the colonists put up with the other things the British did to them. They wrote articles, sent people to England to protest, and talked with one another about it, but they did not revolt.

Gun control and confiscation was what they would NOT put up with.

I think the shame is on you for trying to portray something other than the truth.

The colonists did NOT go to war over the other stuff, even though they were upset about it. However, when they saw they were going to be disarmed and rendered helpless to resist British oppression, they chose to revolt.

If they had not revolted at that moment, they would have lacked the power to do so later. (The citizens of Philadelphia were required to turn in their arms to the Brits "temporarily" after what happened at Lexington--those who complied never saw their guns again.)

Every tyranny begins with disarmament of the citizenry, leaving only the government with arms. Read your history, Michael.

People these days are lulled into believing that guns are no longer necessary for freedom, thinking I suppose that we are so civilized and sophisicated, we would never need to resort to violence to preserve our essential freedoms.

Our freedoms were won through violent action by armed men. They are retained through the power to take those actions again, if need be. The 2nd Amendment is the freedom that preserves all the other freedoms. Our Founding Fathers knew this, but apparently you do not.

Those who would give up an essential freedom in exchange for security, deserve neither--Ben Franklin.

I agree with boomer, there is not a problem in the world that a gun cannot solve. We need more guns.

after reading several articles, it seems to me the main reason is "taxation without representation".

Your absolute ignorance of history is alarming Boomer. The citizens did nothing? Your insistence that the Revolutionary War and the Constitution was solely about guns shows your willingness to rewrite history with no facts to back you up. The citizens did plenty in the lead up to the war. For the love of God we have a political sub party based on one of those events. Open a real history book sometime.

You need to seriously re-read our 2nd Amendment sir. IT does not give us our freedoms the 1st does. Without it we have no freedoms.

If, as you state, arms was the cause of the war why was there absolutely NO mention of this in the Declaration of Independence? None. Rewriting our shared history is an absolute deplorable action.

You are as bad as any politician that seeks to do the same for their own political gain.

We even have a UN Small Arms Treaty being pushed now which would take away many of our rights under the Constitution. Sort of like the British coming down the road to disarm us, and make us slaves to the New World Order.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Mon, Jun 13, 2011, at 10:34 PM

This little passage should have alerted me. The scare tactic have definitely worked on you. The treaty to which you refer would not take away any of our rights UNLESS Congress approved the treaty. Obama (and any other President) can agree to all the Treaties that he wants to but unless Congress approves it, that treaty means nothing.

Here is a perfect example: After World War 1 President Woodrow Wilson helped create the League of Nations during the Treaty of Versailles. Because the Congress was against the idea of the League of Nations the United States never signed the treaty and at a later date ended hostilities with the Central Powers.

Wow, Michael! I never said the colonists did NOTHING about the other stuff. I only said they did not go to war over the other stuff. And you think they did. I am not guilty of revising history to fit my political biases, but you certainly are.

And, of course, sending delegates, and letters, and petitions ad nauseum to the great King George moved him to give the colonists their rights, right?. Nobody needed a gun then to require change. Simple words have rarely if ever caused a despot or dictator to mend his ways and give the people liberty.

All governments seek to expand their power and reduce the power and freedom of their citizens. It's true of our government, too. That is something you SHOULD have learned from your study of history.

Apparently, your being a hoplophobe trumps all facts.

The people, who wrote the Declaration of Independence over a year after the shooting started, were not by and large the people who did the actual fighting in the Revolutionary War. And like most policians of any era, they were behind the curve, politically. The people realized that diplomacy was not going to achieve freedom.

I am fully aware that the UN Small Arms Treaty would have to be approved by Congress. What I said ABOUT the treat is a fact, if it is approved. Civilian disarmament is what gun control is really about and always has been. No gun control has ever applied to the government OR its officials.

So no worries for the President, we aren't going to disarm his bodyguards. Or the guards at the White House and Congress. Just regular folks like you, me and the colonists. LOL.

As to the 1st Amendment, do you really think that freedom will mean much without the 2nd Amendment to back it up? Uh, Mr. Castro, I think your programs all stink. "Get this man off to the dungeons where he belongs, along with anyone else who spouts such anti-government propaganda".

Michael, If I may, you are mostly right above, when you say the 'First gives us the rights,' but you do not close the circle. The 'Second gives us the means,' to keep the 'First.'

Once, I would not have been concerned about a treaty with the UN, since no Administration would then push such a stupid subjugation treaty. Today, the story is on the other foot, so we have to watch the 'shoe.' Congress would have to 2/3rds ratify any treaty, but since this treaty addresses Constitutional law, as I understand, the treaty would also need be ratified by 2/3rds of the individual States, by Second Ammendment removal, or specific waiver, allowing the treaty, or something like that to over-ride the 2nd.

You have me digging into musty memory, and the only thing rote, about something that old would be my musty smell generated sneeze.

We need pray that our leadership is not fool enough to test the backbone of Americans.

Admiral Yamamoto made a comment, back in 41, that may well still be appropriate, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor....'we may well have just woke up a mean dragon,,,' or something to that effect.

I'll shut-up, now.

Navyblue, Boomer62, and Michael:

I must respectfully disagree with all three of you, if I understand your argument correctly. Neither the Constitution nor the government GIVES us any rights. They are there to protect our rights, which are inherent and as the Declaration of Independence notes endowed by our Creator, from usurpation.

morf siht tniop no I kniht I lliw etirw gnihtyreve ni esrever.

I hsiw ti saw taht ysae to ylpmis yas " esolc eht redrob". si siht no cipot?

lluf fo daed sknil.

lol dawg must have as much time on his hands as I do.

Michael, Michael, Michael...every time you start with history, you're proven wrong. Someday, maybe you'll take the time to look it up before you put your foot back in your mouth again. I thank God that you don't teach any of my kids...and that you expose your slant and ignorance so freely to give McCook parents the chance to undo what you've done to their kids.

QUOTE:"Well, thanks to the wonders of the Internet, we can all read what Revere himself had to say about that famous night. The Massachusetts Historical Society has posted a PDF of a letter that Revere wrote, as well as a transcription. In the statement, Revere recounts his travels through the countryside to warn the colonists.

It began, he writes, when "it was observed, that a number of [British] Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common. About 10 o'Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and beged that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock & Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was thought they were the objets."

And then he offers this account of being captured and telling the British that there was a militia waiting for them:

"I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from, & what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, 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." UNQUOTE

There you go, PAUL REVERE'S OWN WORDS, describing how he warned the British that they would not be able to confiscate arms.

Maybe Michael thinks Revere was a lying repuke, too??

so he was warning the colonists? not the british?

"he recounts his travles through the countryside to warn the colonists".

"Navyblue, Boomer62, and Michael:

I must respectfully disagree with all three of you, if I understand your argument correctly. Neither the Constitution nor the government GIVES us any rights. They are there to protect our rights, which are inherent and as the Declaration of Independence notes endowed by our Creator, from usurpation.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jun 14, 2011, at 7:23 PM"

SWNebr Transplant:

You are correct. I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification!

Michael keeps saying I claim gun control was the ONLY reason for the Revolution. Apparently his reading comprehension is on the same level as the level of his understanding of American History, since I clearly wrote otherwise, not once but twice.

War is armed conflict by definition.

Did the colonists go to war:

Over the Stamp Act?

Over the Tax on Tea?

Over being forced to quarter British toops?

Over taxation with out representation?

Over being ordered to throw down their arms and be disarmed at Lexington?

The shooting (armed conflict) started at Lexington, MA 4-19-1775. The history is crystal clear. "The shot heard 'round the world."

I think the cart is being put in front of the horse. When fear of armed rebellion became more and more a reality the british naturally tried to take away arms of the colonists.

Its like saying that I had broken several laws and when the cops came to my door and asked me throw down my guns I say the reason they were there is to take my guns. No, the reason they were there is because I had previously broken several laws. Revisionist history

WOW!!!! The more of this thread I read, the more I believe history is open to interpretation. And I believe the interpretation will be colored by your personal belief system. Fact: the revolution occurred. Reasons: myriad. I think both sides have presented reasonable arguments. Good discussion; (mostly).

Half Gov.palin has shown time and time again how ignorant she really is.I'm amazed that so many people will try to rewrite history just to defend this half witted quitter.When are the righties going to figure out that they're being played?She is all about herself,she dangles that "I might run for President" carrot out there and the neo's start making her rich,or she spits out some teahadist pablum and next thing they know they are paying for her "family vacation".My God even the GOP has deemed her "unelectable" yet people are tripping over themselves to give this dim bulb their money.

She's a grifter and a joke and knows an easy mark when she plays one.It's hard to figure out who's dumber,her for saying the stupid things she does or the rightes who believe and defend it and think she's "an intelligent woman".Come to think of it maybe she is smart,Yeah CON MAN SMART.So you righties keep defending her and giving your money to sarahpac because until she declares herself running she can spend that money any way she wants and she ain't gonna declare a thing as long as the bank is open.

just truthin'

"Did the colonists go to war:

Over the Stamp Act?

Over the Tax on Tea?

Over being forced to quarter British toops?

Over taxation with out representation?

Over being ordered to throw down their arms and be disarmed at Lexington?"

The question to your answers, though the last question is definitely colored by your opinion rather than historic fact is yes to all of them. The colonists went to war over the Stamp Act. They went to war over the tax on tea. They went to war over the forced quartering of British troops. They went to war over taxation without representation. They went to war because they had finally tired of the zealous rule of the British Empire.

"Over being ordered to throw down their arms and be disarmed at Lexington?

The shooting (armed conflict) started at Lexington, MA 4-19-1775. The history is crystal clear. "

You are absolutely right history is crystal clear ... when you rewrite it to match you personal political beliefs. Yet, when you throw the actual historical events into the conversation your history becomes quite fuzzy and cloudy.

I suppose, though, that when I banded army that is standing in your way to your destination you would demand that they disarm themselves. "The shot heard 'round the world" though a great story is quite fuzzy as well. There is no definite history as to who fired the first shot. The minutemen claimed that the British fired first, the British claimed that a colonist fired first.

Were the British on their way to seize a garrison of weapons? Absolutely. But that alone is not THE cause of the Revolutionary War it is one of many causes. None of the causes or more or less important than the others. The defense of the garrisons was a final straw.

That still does not prove that Palin was correct. What she said was that "He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."

Paul Revere did none of that. He rang no bells and he fired no shots in the air. He directed no attention to the British. His ride was silent except when he stopped at individual towns to warn the men there that the British were coming. It had nothing to do with freedom either, it was a warning. Her history is made up. There is not one piece of evidence anywhere to suggest he did anything she claims he did. Revere never even made it Concord or Lexington where the war started. He was arrested by the British before that point.

That's the funny thing about history. It actually happened. You have to have facts to prove that something happened. The information has to be recorded somehow. When you make up history and there are no facts to back up your claim you are simply telling as story, as Palin is guilty of doing here.

Petty childish insults aside MrsSmith, where in Revere's words that you quoted did he say "how he warned the British that they would not be able to confiscate arms." He warned the British after he had been captured that Americans would be waiting. He said nothing about capturing arms. By his own words, that you quoted, that does not match Palin's description. She stated that he rode ringing bells and shooting guns. None of that happened.

All Revere told the British was that Americans would be waiting. You used his own words and then you added your own value to it. That is not history that is storytelling. Rewriting history for your own personal and/or political beliefs does not make your version of history true it just turns it into a story.

Wildhorse,

I understand your points. I imagine the "righties" will stop defending her when the "lefties" stop spending such a concerted effort to paint her negatively. Pretty funny how the media encourages her behavior more than her supporters ever could.

Ok, Michael, an analogy might be in order.

Your wife doesn't work outside the home.

Yet, she demands that you do all the housework, cleaning, washing clothes, grocery shopping, meal preparation, and dishwashing. You even get to pay the bills. You dislike this arrangement and have told her so on numerous occasions. But if you don't do it, it doesn't get done.

She shops online continually, spending more than you make. She blames you for not making enough money. You have vehemently disagreed with that assessment, naturally placing blame where it truly belongs.

Due to all the wrangling, sex has become a semiannual event. You have complained about this to her many times.

(She was really nice before you married here, but things have been going down hill for literally years.)

Yesterday, you discovered she has been bedding down the UPS guy (he's been making daily deliveries of more than one kind).

Today, you finally admit it's hopeless and retain a divorce attorney.

In your petition to the court for divorce (your Declaration of Independence), you outline all of the above causes for your action, except for the infidelity, due to your embarrasment over it.

What was the final straw--the prime motivator for the divorce? Does the reason change because it was not listed in the petition?

Not listing the infidelity is sort of like current history. You really have to dig through the historical accounts to find ANY mention of the purpose of the British trip from Boston to Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. Due to current PC leanings among historians, the arms confiscation is nearly ignored. At the time it was HUGE! Like discovering your wife and the UPS guy--a flash point was reached in the relationship.

Just my view.

Hope you have a great day, everyone!

sounds to me like wildhorse has had his/her daily dos of the DailyKos.

What are the current pc leanings of historians? I guess I am a little behind on that subject. What are the past leanings of historians?

bigdawg there has always been a level of revision in history. This should not be confused with revisionist history. With revisions in history, historians looks at the same information and attempt to pull new information from those sources. At times new theories come about.

Revisionist history occurs when people take information and either add value to it that is not there or in some cases just completely make up information and call it history.

The whole snafu with Paul Revere's ride right now is the idea that he was making that ride as some defense of gun rights. The sources just don't allow that to be true. No where in his ride did he ever warn anyone that the colonists were waiting to ensure that they got to keep their guns. Where revisionists are trying to say that is true is after he had been captured by the British. He did, in fact, warn the British that the colonists would be waiting, but that is it. Any other information about what he said or what he meant is added value where none should be.

It is a pure work of revisionist history.

A good historian is not concerned with pc, however, in the early days of the professional historian in this country (from the late 1800s to a little after the first World War) they did get caught up in the government propaganda of providing a good historical view of the United States. Unfortunately the history of the United States has not always been rosy.

(lap)dawg,

I would say in Michael's response is a good clue as to what the current pc history is. In the past couple of decades, the shift in historical research has been away from what one might consider the "great men" of history and towards history of the common, and the "oppressed". When a shift to those who have suffered occured it was no longer pc to write and research about the positive aspects of a society. That was just "the man" keeping everyone else down. I believe that at some point in the future the pendulum will swing again.

Michael,

I really hate to have to defend Sarah Palin, whom I consider mostly a joke. But when the left spends so much time and effort slandering her it makes one wonder what the hubub is about.

I haven't seen anything in her words that talk about gun rights or second ammendment which is what her detractors, yourself included, claim she was saying. Aside from all of her "umm"s and general confusion, there is nothing historically in accurate about her message that his group also served as a warning that the British would not be unopposed in securing the weapons that the colonists possessed at Concord. Did you read the interview posted above from NPR?

Why do you and the media, seek to make a mountain out of the mole hill of Sarah Palin? She didn't say that Revere's rode up to the British officers and had a discussion about the rights of Colonists to possess firearms, but that is the impression I get from what you and others have said about what she said? What did she say that makes you believe she was making a 2nd Ammendment argument? I have looked at what she actually said, not what the media says she said and there is nothing other than the implication that Revere himself rang church bells and her blatantly inaccurate statement that he was "sending warning shots", unless she means metaphorical warning shots. I don't believe she is quick enough to have meant it that way.

What she said has been turned into something far different by the media, which you recently castigated for being flawed. Do you think it's possible that the media is flawed in this case too? Or are they only wrong when they misrepresent Liberal ideas?

This reminds me of her comment about being able to see Russia from her house, do you remember that?

Oh brave new world! Let's do away with dirty old history anyway. It causes people to become passionate about subjects where there is no need. We should all only be HAPPY! There should be no need for guns in a society where there is no war or violence. Just a shot of soma vapor in the face and we'll all get along.

New book, new paragraph:

Let's let Big Brother take over anyway so that we can do away with this crimethink. Its ungood. After all, history can be rewritten to match whatever Big Brother wants it to be, he knows best. Just a few changes with a speakwrite to a few books and a particular event may not have happened at all, or it was BB's idea in the first place: doubleplusgood. Who is it we are at war with right now anyway? Is it East Asia or Eurasia?

You are right Michael, we tend to forget our history. Moreover, we do not seem to learn from it either. If the point of your writing above is to wax nostalgic about some fascinating historical markers, good on you. There's nothing wrong with that. One would hope that we could preserve a few more things like that, but like Mickel pointed out, they tend to be lost to private owners, or like you said, to a lake. Cities and counties typically can't afford to keep monuments like that from disrepair d/t the cost of maintenance. It's sad, I agree. However, if I agreed with you on most everything else, we'd both be wrong.

Michael

Thank you for posting Sarah Palin's exact words. Now how about YOUR exact words...

QUOTE: "There is Sarah Palin who believes that Paul Revere actually warned the British that we were not going to simply put down our guns..." UNQUOTE

Now Revere's exact words...

QUOTE: " I told him; and aded, 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." UNQUOTE

Weirdly enough, it seems that Paul Revere did actually warn the British that they were expected and could not simply confiscate the arms as they planned.

Did Palin embellish some? Yep.

Did Michael embellish some? Yep.

I guess it's a good thing you aren't giving speeches around the country, Michael!! You're as "bad" as Palin.

:-)

Today's students don't know much about histry--link to Wall Street Journal Article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP1d91fa4d684a4b008d9ff92bf02a861a.html

Students do worst on history out of SEVEN subjects tested.

The original article had an interactive test you could take. I got 6 for 6 on it and I am no genius.

I'm still waiting for you to post where Paul Revere said that he warned the British weren't going to take the Colonists arms. The quote that you have now posted twice makes no mention of that.

Weirdly enough Paul Revere did not say what you claim he did. I have embellished nothing. I have reported what actually happen. You have made up what you believe happened, to the point of posting EXACTLY what Revere said and then adding to it.

Michael,

I think you are taking your hatred of Palin and absolute denial of anything a person you feel is conservative says to absurd levels today.

Why don't you tell us exactly what Revere said, since you seem to be such an expert on it? Listening to you criticize, I get the feeling you must have been there in person.

You've reported exactly what actually happened huh? You must be pretty old to remember it and not be basing your musings on the research of others that may or may not be accurate.

I don't think one needs a direct quote from Revere to infer than his groups warnings where in an effort to keep the British from "tak[ing] the Colonists arms" [sic] do you disagree that was the purpose of the event?

You're right though, you haven't embellished what he said, instead you've had tunnel vision in your hatred of conservatives to the exclusion of common sense.

That's funny SW. You can infer what Paul Revere said more than 200 years ago, yet you have huge issues inferring what I say here and now. That's the funniest thing I've read in quite some time. Thank you for the laugh.

Michael,

You're welcome, although you are trying to "add value" to what I said to get your "humor".

I am not guessing at what he said, I am viewing the larger picture of the actions of the day. Please read what I say and do less guessing at meaning, that is what I ask and what I do when reading all posts. Where did I say that I was guessing what he said? Nowhere. I inferred from his group actions and the result of that action. You and MrsSmith are the ones who seem to be saying you know what historical actors said and meant. This is particularly troubling to me since you claim to be a historian who never cites any information to support your claims.

I note you mock me yet do not add anything to discussion, how typical. Do you disagree that the purpose of the "ride" was to keep the weapons in colonists' hands? Please answer the question I pose or I will be forced to conclude that you agree with my statement. This agreement will make your previous arguments seem fatuous.

"Do you disagree that the purpose of the "ride" was to keep the weapons in colonists' hands?"

Are you kidding me? Of course I disagree. If you could infer (or you know, actually read what I have actually written) a quarter as well as you apparently can from a guy from 200 years ago, you would know that. His ride was to alert the colonists that the British were coming. He mentions nothing about arms or guns at any time.

"Where did I say that I was guessing what he said?"

The better question SW is where did I ever say that you were guessing. That never came from me and as far as I can tell you are just making this up, again.

What I was laughing about was your quote: "I don't think one needs a direct quote from Revere to infer than his groups warnings where in an effort to keep the British from "tak[ing] the Colonists arms""

Let's forget just how garbled this particular sentence is for a minute (besides you are the one who likes to pick apart what people are saying and alert them to their misspelled words or garbled spelling structures) what was funny is you seem to have this ability to infer that Paul Revere's ride was about warning the British that the colonists were not going to let them take their guns. You even go as far as saying that you don't need a direct quote to infer such a thing. Yet whenever it comes to my writing. The ability to infer without direct quotes completely vanishes. Suddenly you need every little thing explained to you. Pretty much just like this. I thought when I said it was funny that you can infer what Paul Revere meant 200 years ago yet you can't do the same right now with me was pretty self explanatory. Yet when you tried to use your inferring skills you somehow got them so mixed up that you thought I was accusing you of guessing at something. It's hilarious.

"I note you mock me yet do not add anything to discussion, how typical."

Yes, because the world knows that you would NEVER mock anyone without adding anything to the discussion, well except here:

"Why don't you tell us exactly what Revere said, since you seem to be such an expert on it? Listening to you criticize, I get the feeling you must have been there in person."

or here:

"You've reported exactly what actually happened huh? You must be pretty old to remember it and not be basing your musings on the research of others that may or may not be accurate."

or especially this last quote which really makes no sense:

"You're right though, you haven't embellished what he said, instead you've had tunnel vision in your hatred of conservatives to the exclusion of common sense."

The ride of Paul Revere is not political for me. It's about getting the facts right and not adding something that isn't there. He made no mention of arms or guns after he was captured yet here you, MrsSmith, and Boomer inferring (or as I like to simply call it making up history) that he must have meant that.

I have always enjoyed how you constantly castigate others (well mostly me)for doing things that you, yourself constantly do.

Despite how much you and the others want to change history to match your own political ideals (and cue up the denials of political ideals as always), actual verifiable history does not match up with the story you want push.

You want to demand that I provide the facts? I am not trying to change (or make up history) as I go. That would be you. Provide me with one verifiable piece of evidence that the Revolutionary War was simply about gun rights. No one has yet to do that. The only person that has even come close to attempting to provide proof was MrsSmith and she took a statement by Revere out of context in order to do so. He lone warning to the British was after he had already been captured and he made no mention of the colonists' attempt to keep their arms. There is no shred of evidence that Revere rode around ringing bells or shooting guns. But please if you still believe he did show me the proof.

Michael,

"Yes, because the world knows that you would NEVER mock anyone without adding anything to the discussion"

I'm beginning to think that Sir Didymus is right about you. Haven't you said how much you hate it when people use other people's bad behavior to excuse there own? Yet here you are, once again, using someone else's behavior to excuse your own.

"I have always enjoyed how you constantly castigate others (well mostly me)for doing things that you, yourself constantly do."

Hello Mr. Pot

"Are you kidding me? Of course I disagree. If you could infer (or you know, actually read what I have actually written) a quarter as well as you apparently can from a guy from 200 years ago, you would know that. His ride was to alert the colonists that the British were coming. He mentions nothing about arms or guns at any time."

Either you really ARE as stupid or at least short sighted as I think or you are willfully ignoring reality in your quest to hate those who aren't Liberal as you. Lets take this one step farther. Where were the British that Revere was warning people about going and what were they going to do Mr. History expert?

Do you read what I write or do you just go off half cocked when you see I respond? You have a disturbing tendency to assign motives and comments to me that I don't express let alone possess. Look at your last paragraph.

1. I don't believe the war was simply about gun rights, I never said anything of the sort, yet here you go trying to put words in my mouth. I said the group of patriots were trying to keep colonist's arms from being captured by the British on that night, which if you were honest or fair you would agree is true. I don't know why you think that makes it a war about "simply gun rights".

2. I already addressed the ringing bells and shooting guns in an earlier post, apparently you didn't read it so I'll copy it here:

" I have looked at what she actually said, not what the media says she said and there is nothing other than the implication that Revere himself rang church bells and her blatantly inaccurate statement that he was "sending warning shots", unless she means metaphorical warning shots. I don't believe she is quick enough to have meant it that way."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 17, 2011, at 11:16 AM

I disagree with your contention that his lone warning was after he was captured. While true as I already discussed he didn't directly approach the British; however, the British would have heard the church bells being rung and known their march was not going unnoticed.

Mr. Master Historian Pot, please elucidate for us the purpose of Revere's ride since it apparently, in your view, had nothing to do with warning the colonists that British were marching to seize weapons.

As for inferring from history vs. guessing what living people mean, I'm surprised you are so annoyed by it. Trust me, if Revere were available I would ask him what he did or meant. You have continued to display a pattern of trying to attribute words and thoughts to me that are in fact not true. I don't wish to do the same to you, I find it terribly rude to do so, so I ask you to clarify. As always if you choose to know what I really think instead of guessing and being wrong as you often are, please ask and I'll be happy to try to clarify.

SWNebr Transplant,

It is quite apparent by now that Mike does not answer any questions. He only responds to implied or downright imagined 'attacks'. Unfortunately you cannot use this aspect of his unhealthy thinking to try and figure out what he thinks or believes. Or I suppose it could mean that he suspects that he is wrong and does not want to admit it. These are some reasons why he would spout 'I know you are but what am I' type statements, or claim to be "humored" by those aforementioned 'attacks'.

It has been proven logically that he finds himself repugnant, perhaps he lacks the mental acuity to actually consider change.

If he didn't exhibit so many signs of unhealthy thinking I would suspect that he is actually too stupid to refute any well laid out argument.

As it stands, I try (and fail at times) to keep my outrage to a minimum when responding to his rantings and try to shock him into actually examining what he is saying. It hasn't worked too well so far.

I just thought of something. Mike has actually negated most of his blog with his posts. Unless he actually talked in person to all of his examples you can consider his whole blog wrong. Using his previous blog "Media Fail" He rants about the inaccuracies of news coverage. He then uses the same news media coverage to illustrate his points. Does any one else see the disconnect? This tends to suggest that this blog is a pointless waste of time, rather than the run of the mill waste of time that all blogs are.

Interesting, eh?

Ah I see the name calling is back ... something which you have previously said that you hated, when other people were doing. I really wish SW that you were able to make it through posts without name calling or mocking people but you clearly are not able to do so.

Just to be clear I am not using your behavior to excuse what I say or do. I simply like to point out that while you hold everyone (particularly myself and other none conservatives) to an extremely high level of what they should say and do on this website you don't hold yourself to that same level. Even more striking is your denial that you are guilty of it.

Didymus, if my blog is such a waste of time then why do you even bother to read and then, after reading it post on it. Seems rather strange to me.

I guess, you will now take the SW way out and claim that you never said my blog was a waste of time just so you can ease your mind about reading and posting on a blog that you see as such a waste of time.

Mike,

See, I understand the value of wasting time. That is what I meant by "run of the mill waste of time." I have no problem wasting time. I notice that you focus on one very very small bit of my postings. Interesting.

P.S.

Why is it that you have so much problem with "name calling" but outright mockery is just peachy with you? Especially, when the "name calling" is merely an attempt to call to your attention your hypocrisy?

Why is it you add value to what others say and then ask them why they act in a particular matter that you have made up?

Mike,

I don't think that question fits together very well, unless you are deliberately trying to trap me. If that is the case, you failed.

Lets split up that horrible sentance.

First part.

Why is it you add value to what others say?

Well, I don't know what you exactly mean by that, but it is what you do if you agree or think you agree with what is communicated. You would either indicate support by paraphrasing or adding to what they said, or try and gain clarity by stating what you think and hoping it is what they meant. That is why I try and add value to what others thing.

Second Part.

{Why do you} ask them why they act in a particular matter (manner?) that you made up?

If you are referring to what I directed at you? First, I ask why people do things when I don't understand their motivations or meanings. But as to the "made up" part? I don't believe I made it up at all. Let me make clear my meaning. When you cast derision on someone's questions, you are mocking them. That is what you have been doing often on this blog and others. And not to put a fine point on it, it is always when someone is either A) Disagreeing with you, B) Asking you to say what you mean/clarify your position, or C) Both. Usually it is both.

I hope this clears it up, and I hope that I am being a good example to you on how to answer a question posed to you. If I was not clear, please ask follow up questions and I will answer them to the best of my ability. Have a happy Father's Day!

Mike,

I re-read your question and perhaps you did mean "matter" rather than manner. If you are implying that SWNebr transplant was not trying to force you to examine your own hypocrisy well, I believe that he calls you "Mr. Pot" mostly in referrence to the old saying "that is like the pot calling the kettle black" Which is to imply hypocrisy. It could be that he is using it as a dual meaning in referrence to your cannabis addiction. I don't know. I do know that he talks about your hypocrisy often and your admitted addiction rarely if ever. Good day!

Michael,

"Just to be clear I am not using your behavior to excuse what I say or do. I simply like to point out that while you hold everyone (particularly myself and other none conservatives) to an extremely high level of what they should say and do on this website you don't hold yourself to that same level. Even more striking is your denial that you are guilty of it."

I think you are indeed using my behavior to excuse your's. How can you say you are not. Lets go back over the incident: I noted that you mocked me without adding anything to discussion. You agreed that you mocked me without adding to discussion when you said: "Yes, because the world knows that you would NEVER mock anyone without adding anything to the discussion"

Thus using my behavior to excuse your own. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a good tease and even a mocking or two. Your problem is that in the past you have said this behavior is reprehensible. Then when you engage in this behavior because I do, you are doing something you find reprehensible.

I have never said mocking others is reprehensible so I don't commit hypocrisy by using others behavior to excuse mine, like you did.

I disagree with you on another point. I don't hold anyone to a higher standard, nor do I deny what I am guilty of. The denial thing seems to be your forte. I don't know how many times I've admitted to being a hypocrit on these boards. So pointing out your hypocrisy, in addition to being a time consuming effort, is not holding you to a higher standard.

Anyway back to Revere, what was the purpose of the ride in your learned opinion since you have clearly said it was not to preserve the colonist's weapons.

Funny thing, Sir Didymus has you pegged. You have refused to answer a simple question, yet have posted several times in response to "attacks".

Michael,

I was looking back over the post and I see you lied about what I said again. I don't think I denied saying your blog was a waste of time. I thought I have had this discussion several times. I agree with Sir Didymus, wasting time is fine, if you choose to waste your time blogging and I choose to waste mine pointing out the hypocrisy in your blog we should all be happy, right?

I would like to know what Mike's opinion as a Certified Historian is as to the purpose of Paul Revere's ride. I would also like to hear his argument that the colonists did not care about their gun rights, because he asserts that Paul Revere's ride had nothing to do with guns at all. I assume that Mike means that the colonists were going to just write more broadsheets (I believe that they were primitive blogs) to complain about the location that some were saying the British were coming from/going to was incorrect in some other media format, like the musings of a town drunk (another early blog format)

See Mike, that is mockery. I didn't name call at all, so I can be assured that you are okay with it. I wouldn't want to call a name, therefore negating every other question or point I would make.

you called me semi-literate. Adult illetracy is a real problem in this country and I am offended by your comments. If I were half the tattle-tail you are I would tell the web master.

(lap)dawg,

I thoroughly enjoyed the randomness of your last post. Keep it up!

Michael,

What do YOU think Paul Revere was warning about during his famous ride by shouting, "The British are coming"? Do you think the Brits were coming over for tea? Get out the tea sets, oh, colonists? Or were they coming for the wine festival? Or perhaps they merely wished to add their number to some unmentioned parade through the villages of Lexington and Concord, to celebrate the wonderful relationship between the British soldiers and the colonists?

The reason for the British visit was certainly not for tea time, or anything of the sort, but to start disarming the colonists. I can't imagine what you think the purpose of the British expedition was. To believe the purpose was other than disarmament, is to join the PC historians that I see revising history by leaving out the "gun control" aspect of the invasion.

It seems you are a life member of the PC Historians of America.

Boomer62,

Good luck with your question. Mike does not have to answer it. He only has to say that everyone that disagrees with his point of view (whatever that may be) is wrong. If I had to guess he will attack your views without stating any of his own. It is tiresome, eh?

Boomer is there an actual question in there or just more mocking of a serious issue which you have determined that your unverified, unprovable history is correct?

Also, if your history is the correct one then why do you incorrectly state that Paul Revere warned that the "British were coming?" At the time Revere was a British citizen. Why would he be warning people that he was coming?

The invasion was meant to destroy armaments (not to simply disarm) and to arrest the leaders of the Colonists.

I like your PC Historians of America, that's catchy. Though, I prefer to be in the Professional Historians of America group that actually report on history factually. You can have the PCs and the Revisionists. I don't consider them to be real historians, because they make it up as they go and downplay other historical events to push their own personal and political ideologies.

"I would also like to hear his argument that the colonists did not care about their gun rights, because he asserts that Paul Revere's ride had nothing to do with guns at all."

Didymus could you point out where I said any of this or are you guilty, once again, of making up what I have said and posting it as fact?

Michael,

Let me direct you to your comments to me, when I was asking almost the same question. Unsurprisingly Boomer didn't get an answer either.

Here is where I asked about the ride and keeping Colonial weapons in Colonial hands, and you saying that wasn't the purpose

"Do you disagree that the purpose of the "ride" was to keep the weapons in colonists' hands?"

Are you kidding me? Of course I disagree. If you could infer (or you know, actually read what I have actually written) a quarter as well as you apparently can from a guy from 200 years ago, you would know that. His ride was to alert the colonists that the British were coming. He mentions nothing about arms or guns at any time."

That should satisfy your question to Sir Didymus, maybe you will apologize for calling him a liar.

Mike,

You have got to be kidding me. I laughed out loud after this statement....

"The invasion was meant to destroy armaments (not to simply disarm) and to arrest the leaders of the Colonists."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 2:28 PM

You crack me up...you argue argue argue about Paul Revere's Ride, and then negate your own arguments. You really must be a self-hater.

And, thank you SW, I was going to make that point myself. I hope you don't mind if I use a variation of your tagline...

"Waiting for an apology"

--Sir D.

I suppose Mike will point out that destroying guns isn't "gun control". I guess that when the Nazi's burned books it wasnt about censorship then eh? They just wanted to get rid of those books. What a joke.