Skip to main content

Altering History Via Wikipedia

After she flubbed with regard to the history of Paul Revere’s Ride, Sarah Palin was quick to defend herself and many of her supporters attempted to alter history in order to justify their hero’s statements. They tried doing this via the online site, wikipedia. This is a good indicator one is on the losing side of an argument - The wikipedia loophole. All other news-related sites may counter Ms. Palin’s statement(s), but as long as wikipedia has her back, it proves she knows her history! It reminds me of the time I answered a question on my college algebra final wrong, but after I tinkered with wikipedia, I showed the professor and she gave me the 100% that I so deserved. It also reminds me of the time Ms. Palin and John McCain lost the 2008 presidential election, but after their supporters wrote that they had won the election via wikipedia, that sealed the deal for the Republican Party. Why I haven’t seen Maverick McCain in the Oval Office much in the past 2+ years is beyond me and has me quite perplexed.

Due to this lame attempt to change the course of history, I thought it’d be fun to turn the tables and create a wikipedia page entitled, “Sarah Palin Supporters”. Remember, since the following is in writing and on a fictionalized wikipedia page, it’s factual.

Sarah Palin Supporters

As of June 13th, 2011, Sarah Palin has 392,496 supporters, down from 2,995,214 the day after election day in 2008.

Of these supporters: 23.1% are literate; 42.3% have the name Sarah tattooed to some part of their body (numbers were not disclosed as to which body parts were the most popular); 92.0% don’t believe that both a subject and predicate are needed to form a complete sentence; 96.9% believe that George W. Bush was this country’s first president; 2.2% believe that 2 + 2 = 4; 89.1% want to go pheasant hunting with Dick Cheney and 50.1% want to one day fly to the moon via a Ford Ranger while listening to Toby Keith’s “Angry American”.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-fans-try-to-rewrite-wikipedia-history-of-paul-reveres-ride-2011-6
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more