Another example of how dumb liberals are: Palin has last laugh on PBS host, Kos

teapartysamurai

Gold Member
Mar 27, 2010
20,056
2,562
290
My prediction is, liberals will only scream it came from WND so it has to be a lie.

As IF the Boston Tea Party DIDN'T happen in 1773!

The Boston Tea Party, 1773

Blogger Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos and PBS host Gwen Ifill could barely contain themselves when they came across an apparent elementary historical-knowledge gaffe by tea party favorite Sarah Palin, but it turns out the left-leaning commentators were the ones with egg on their faces.
Moulitsas – a major power-broker in the Democratic Party's left-wing base – dashed off a message to his thousands of followers through the Internet social network Twitter after Palin told tea party activists in Nevada, "Don't party like it's 1773 yet," reported the blogger who uses the pen name Cuffy Meigs.

Moulitsas sneered, "She's so smart."

Ifill wrote: "Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! Ummm."

Others mocked Palin with comments such as "uhhh" and "[expletive] happened in 1773?"

Palin presumably knows the U.S. was born in 1776. But what Moulitsas and his crew didn't recall was that 1773 was the year of the Boston Tea Party, the inspiration for the grass roots movement that is threatening to sweep the Democratic Party from power in Congress next month.

Palin has last laugh on PBS host, Kos

As another blog put it:

I mean, hell, it must be extremely embarrassing to have your obvious ignorance of 5th grade American history revealed by the likes of the Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas and PBS anchor & presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill. HAHAHAHAHA, what a freakin' dumb ass! What happened in 1773, indeed!

oh, wait:


Boston Tea Party, 1773

Like they were saying: Ummmmm...

PS: In case you're thinking Palin got lucky, the Right Scoop has full video of her remarks ... which clearly refer to the original Boston Tea Party.

Perfunction: Historic Illiteracy: Idiot Sarah Palin "Party Like It's 1773" After The Election!

Check out the commentary section they posted from the liberal site. ALL OF THEM ARE IDIOTS! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

This is the definition of what I call SCHMART! People who think they are sooooooooooooooooo smart but in reality are DUMB AS A BAG OF HAMMERS.

They are always sneering and looking down on the people who really have the brains, and assuring themselves of their SCHMARTNESS because everyone else who is schmart tells them they are schmart, so it MUST be true! :eusa_snooty:

The liberals have the SCHMART market cornered!

So, in the liberal's haste to put forth the talking point, that Palin's dumb, they exposed WHO REALLY IS DUMB!

Once again IT'S LIBERALS who expose they NOT only know nothing about the history of this country, they know nothing about the history of the Tea Party.

November is coming! (I'm going to keep saying that because it so annoys Madelbrain)

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
For the Obamanation, US history did not begin until 1/1/2009. Nothing else mattered before then.

I guess it should be no surprise that liberals don't know American History. They hate America. Of course they don't know what happened in 1773. :D
 
But ask a Progressive about the Bolshevik Revolution and they'll give you hours and hours of facts and figures right down to the names of everyone who fought and died for their cause
 
But ask a Progressive about the Bolshevik Revolution and they'll give you hours and hours of facts and figures right down to the names of everyone who fought and died for their cause

They think the real revolution was the French Revolution! :D
 
What? No liberals coming in to tell us how dumb Sarah Palin is?

How she doesn't have enough experience to be president?

Gee. I wonder why that could be? :eusa_shhh:


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
But they're not threatened by Palin.

Nah

Not at all

It's a healthy 24/7/365 kind of obsession
 
That was a pretty good "gotcha"..she's had plenty of time to bone up. I doubt however if you got into a very real conservation with her about American history and it's implications, you wouldn't get further then just generalizations. At least that's what I gleen from her interviews. She doesn't seem to know much about it.
 
For the Obamanation, US history did not begin until 1/1/2009. Nothing else mattered before then.
========================
Hmmm, that statement reminds me of a statement by former Ronald Reagan Presidential Advisor Bruce Bartlett.
Bartlett contended that tea baggers (and the GOP) seem to think that there were no record deficits before Obama and that Obama is totally responsible for all the ills America.
Thanks for jarring my memory.
 
That was a pretty good "gotcha"..she's had plenty of time to bone up. I doubt however if you got into a very real conservation with her about American history and it's implications, you wouldn't get further then just generalizations. At least that's what I gleen from her interviews. She doesn't seem to know much about it.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Oh get this! She couldn't have known it on her own.

She had to look it up!

Yeah! That's it!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
But they're not threatened by Palin.

Nah

Not at all

It's a healthy 24/7/365 kind of obsession

I keep telling people. Liberals will tell you who they fear.

They fear Palin. ;)

You betcha.

We saw how bad an incompetent President George W. Bush was..and we believe that Palin couldn't carry Bush's water...intellectually.

Yeah, Bush was soooooooooooooooooooo lame and non intellectual he beat liberals TWICE!

So what does that say about liberals?????

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
I keep telling people. Liberals will tell you who they fear.

They fear Palin. ;)

You betcha.

We saw how bad an incompetent President George W. Bush was..and we believe that Palin couldn't carry Bush's water...intellectually.

Yeah, Bush was soooooooooooooooooooo lame and non intellectual he beat liberals TWICE!

So what does that say about liberals?????

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Correction. Bush lost the first election..he was appointed by the Supreme Court.

And the second election was pretty dubious as well. In any case..even if the numbers are to be believed..it was a pretty slim majority.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top