logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Elizabeth Warren, Too fraudulent to be elected?
akaCG
post May 12 2012, 05:28 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Many if not most of us have heard of Ms. Warren's now debunked claims to Cherokee heritage and employment thereof during her academic career.

It now appears that the integrity of her scholarship leaves a lot to be desired as well, to put it mildly:
QUOTE
...
... Claiming to be an "authority" on bankruptcy law, Warren has written papers and books wildly inflating the role medical bills play in personal bankruptcies.

A Northwestern University peer review of her 2005 paper on the subject, for example, ripped it apart, arguing "the methods were so poor they gave cover to those who want to dismiss the problems of the uninsured — they can say the only paper out there uses a suspect method."
...
ABC News suggested she was exercising a hidden agenda to promote a government-run health system. Sure enough, President Obama in 2009 seized on her findings to argue for socialized medicine: "The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds."
...
In 2010, as Obama was floating Warren's name as someone to run his new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, "The Atlantic" magazine reviewed her academic work and found a disturbing "pattern" of using bogus metrics to inflate the case for left-wing causes. "Deeply, deeply flawed," it said of her research. "This isn't Harvard (Law) caliber material — not even Harvard undergraduate."
...

Link: http://news.investors.com/article/610773/2...igor.htm?p=full

Ms. Warren is currently running for the office of U.S. Senator from Massachussetts, hoping to unseat Republican Scott Brown.

Questions:

1. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) will cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

2. Do you think these revelations (both regarding her heritage and the integrity of her scholarship) should cause her to lose the election? Why or why not?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
BoF
post May 16 2012, 09:33 PM
Post #41


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 04:22 PM) *
I said it MAY not even be close.

Nice try though. You have anything constructive to add?

Try tellling the truth, Ted.

NT did not edit your statement.

Here it is verbatim including the fact that you didn’t end the sentence with a period.
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 09:19 AM) *
Its fair game and it will have an impact here in my state. She will lose to Brown. and imo it will not even be close

Maybe you intended to edit the statement to include the word "may" but never got around to it.

You are stuck with what you wrote. Love it or leave it. laugh.gif

This post has been edited by BoF: May 16 2012, 09:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post May 16 2012, 09:53 PM
Post #42


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 05:22 PM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 16 2012, 05:19 PM) *
Wanna see a new land speed record for flip-flopping? unsure.gif

Here's Ted at 10:19:

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 10:19 AM) *
She will lose to Brown. and imo it will not even be close.


And here's Ted at 04:55 following a reality check by BoF:

QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 04:55 PM) *
It will be close but imo Brown is doing a great job and will be re elected.


Check back in a few hours when Ted next looks in his cracked crystal ball and proclaims, "Elizabeth Warren will be a great senator. Or she may not. In my opinion." wacko.gif

I said it MAY not even be close.

Nice try though. You have anything constructive to add?


Oh, sure. Lots. Scads. Tons. All kinds of constructive things to add.

But I'm not doing that right now. Right now I'm watching you try---and not at all successfully---to weasel out of your words. You never said "may". You never even used the word. C'mon, Ted. Don't you think anyone on this board can read? Wassup with that?

You were predicting the race between Warren and Brownt wouldn't be close before you were predicting it would be. Now if that's not a flip-flop so big even Mitt Romney might have to say, "damn, son", then what is?

Own your words, bub. mrsparkle.gif

Meanwhile, columnist Clarence Page weighs in on Warren's Cherokee controversy:

QUOTE
So what if Elizabeth Warren claims to be part Native American? She's entitled, according to historical documents. Besides, Americans never have been all that clear or consistent about what distinguishes one race from another.

Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts is calling on his Democratic challenger Warren to clear the air over questions raised by the Boston Herald as to whether she used her ancient and diluted Indian heritage to give herself an unfair employment advantage.

At least she's not lying about her background. Historical records appear to confirm that she has Cherokee ancestors. But is her background Indian enough?

The Herald reported that Warren used to list herself as Native American in law school directories while teaching at several law schools across the country in the 1980s and '90s.

She dropped the reference from her biography after she was hired at Harvard Law School in the 1990s at a time when protesting students and faculty had been pressuring the school to hire more minority female faculty. The law school says it has one faculty member of Native American heritage, according to reports, but won't say which one.

If Warren was claiming Indian ancestry when it worked to her benefit, she was following another American tradition, writes David Treur, an Ojibwe Indian from northern Minnesota and author of "Rez Life: An Indian's Journey Through Reservation Life."

"An Indian identity has become a commodity," he recently wrote in The Washington Post, "though not one that is openly traded. It has real value in only a few places; the academy is one of them. And like most commodities, it is largely controlled by the elite."


This post has been edited by nighttimer: May 16 2012, 09:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post May 16 2012, 10:26 PM
Post #43


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I see why Ted is so enamored with people like Scott Brown and Mitt Romney.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post May 17 2012, 12:10 AM
Post #44


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 16 2012, 05:53 PM) *
...
Meanwhile, columnist Clarence Page weighs in on Warren's Cherokee controversy:
QUOTE
So what if Elizabeth Warren claims to be part Native American? She's entitled, according to historical documents. ...
...
At least she's not lying about her background. Historical records appear to confirm that she has Cherokee ancestors. ...
...

...

Page's article is a week old. Lots has happened since then. As it turns out, there are no historical documents that confirm that Ms. Warren has any Cherokee ancestors and would therefore entitle her to claim to be part Native American. Other than falsely, that is.

Perhaps you could put your journalistic communication channels to good use and forward the following, written by a genuine Cherokee, to Mr. Page:
QUOTE
...
Dear Ms. Warren,

I am writing this letter in the hope it will help end the current situation you have found yourself in. It seems you are being ripped apart in the media because of your claim of Cherokee ancestry and you don't like it. According to a recent article in the Boston Globe, you believe your opponent is "creating a distraction" by "ridiculously" attacking you "with questions that have already been answered." It seems you would like the "attacks" against your claims of Cherokee ancestry to stop so I thought I would offer some advice on how to make it stop.

Tell the truth.
...
You have claimed something you had no right to claim -- our history and our heritage and our identity. Those things belong to us, and us alone. These are not things we choose to embrace when they benefit us and then cast aside when we no longer need them, but that is what you seem to have done by "checking a box" for several years and then no longer "checking" it more recently, when apparently you no longer needed it.

Of course, you say you only "checked the box" in an attempt to meet others like you, but that doesn't make sense. If one is claiming to be Cherokee and wants to meet other Cherokees, they don't "check a box" on a job application or in a directory for their profession! They go to where Cherokees are.
...

Link: http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/2012/05...eth-warren.html

That way, Mr. Page could contact Ms. Twila Barnes (the author of the above-quoted letter) and perhaps be inspired to write a fresh article on the matter.

EDITED TO ADD:

Speaking of "checking" and un-"checking" minority "boxes", as well as the timing thereof, ...

Even a senior editor at the New Yorker magazine (widely known as a rightwingyellowjournalismpropaganda publication1) is, ever so gingerly, finding reason to raise her eyebrows, as it were:
QUOTE
...
What makes her identification with the tribe feel scattershot, if not outright opportunistic, is that she reportedly only listed herself publicly that way from about 1986 until the mid-nineties, in her first academic posts, and then stopped doing so after getting the appointment at Harvard. ...
...
She put herself down as Native American for the lunch invitations, and stopped when none were forthcoming? Hearing that from a woman who knows how to be straightforward—and who would now surely be able to issue some invitations on her own—one can’t help but wince. ... The problem is that even if you accept Warren’s explanation entirely at face value—that this was all about a Native American woman looking for other Native Americans to talk to—it doesn’t sound good. She doesn’t appear to have looked very hard, for one thing. ... what Warren is saying is that when she was a junior faculty member, and relatively powerless, she opened herself up, waiting to be asked; as a senior professor, and in a position to be the asker, or at least a resource, she took her name off the list.
...

Link: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/clos...n-question.html

1Sarcasm.

This post has been edited by akaCG: May 16 2012, 11:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post May 17 2012, 12:58 AM
Post #45


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 16 2012, 06:26 PM) *
I see why Ted is so enamored with people like Scott Brown and Mitt Romney.

ya lets stick with Obama who hasn't kept a promise since they jammed the HC Bill through. I am sure it works for you Rap

As for flipping - Obama own the title there. liberals are still waiting for that cap n trade bill ..............

nice list here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8022402094.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post May 17 2012, 02:32 AM
Post #46


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 07:58 PM) *
ya lets stick with Obama who hasn't kept a promise since they jammed the HC Bill through. I am sure it works for you Rap

This thread is about a state race. It's taken you a morning and evening shift to get it off track. Congratulations. thumbsup.gif

This post has been edited by BoF: May 17 2012, 02:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post May 17 2012, 02:40 AM
Post #47


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(BoF @ May 16 2012, 10:32 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 07:58 PM) *
ya lets stick with Obama who hasn't kept a promise since they jammed the HC Bill through. I am sure it works for you Rap

This thread is about a state race. It's taken you a morning and evening shift to get it off track. Congratulations. thumbsup.gif

Relax, "BoF".

"Ted" (or any other single ad.gif-er, for that matter) is no more capable of single-handedly getting a thread off track than you, no matter how hard you might try, are.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post May 17 2012, 12:16 PM
Post #48


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,346
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ May 16 2012, 10:40 PM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ May 16 2012, 10:32 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 07:58 PM) *
ya lets stick with Obama who hasn't kept a promise since they jammed the HC Bill through. I am sure it works for you Rap

This thread is about a state race. It's taken you a morning and evening shift to get it off track. Congratulations. thumbsup.gif

Relax, "BoF".

"Ted" (or any other single ad.gif-er, for that matter) is no more capable of single-handedly getting a thread off track than you, no matter how hard you might try, are.


Heh, but you have to admit that the "criticism" of Warren is a lot like the birther thing about Obama, except "fibbing" about having Native American blood carries none of the constitutional implications that being born on foreign soil does. It actually carries no "implication" whatsoever, so this train can't be derailed. It isn't a train at all, more like a little red wagon. That can lose a wheel.

Meanwhile, Brown has a dubious record while taking up "space" in the Senate. There's where the train is, and it's heading toward a wreck. All Warren has to do is point to that record and keep reminding the electorate of Massachusetts where his loyalties lie.

I've noticed that the academic papers thing has fizzled out. Guess nobody cares what the opinions are from some academecians (genus pedagogic slimiferous mustpublishit *).

* Pulled from the arse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post May 17 2012, 01:09 PM
Post #49


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 17 2012, 07:16 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 16 2012, 10:40 PM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ May 16 2012, 10:32 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 07:58 PM) *
ya lets stick with Obama who hasn't kept a promise since they jammed the HC Bill through. I am sure it works for you Rap

This thread is about a state race. It's taken you a morning and evening shift to get it off track. Congratulations. thumbsup.gif

Relax, "BoF".

"Ted" (or any other single ad.gif-er, for that matter) is no more capable of single-handedly getting a thread off track than you, no matter how hard you might try, are.


Heh, but you have to admit that the "criticism" of Warren is a lot like the birther thing about Obama, except "fibbing" about having Native American blood carries none of the constitutional implications that being born on foreign soil does. It actually carries no "implication" whatsoever, so this train can't be derailed. It isn't a train at all, more like a little red wagon. That can lose a wheel.

Meanwhile, Brown has a dubious record while taking up "space" in the Senate. There's where the train is, and it's heading toward a wreck. All Warren has to do is point to that record and keep reminding the electorate of Massachusetts where his loyalties lie.

I've noticed that the academic papers thing has fizzled out. Guess nobody cares what the opinions are from some academecians (genus pedagogic slimiferous mustpublishit *).

* Pulled from the arse.


Oh, I wouldn't let Ted pull me off course with his howlers of lies. But I did find it amusing that he lies in his support of serial liars. When even akaCG refuses to back him up you know his pants are on fire.

I like your comparison of this Warren non-issue with the birther non-issue. I also agree the academic issue has no legs, given the two easily rebuttable criticisms of her papers came from A) a rank partisan and cool.gif someone paid off to write his criticism, which even he admits reflects poorly on his own credibility.

Part of what makes this interesting to me is that I have little doubt Warren never lied about her heritage. It's entirely possible she was mistaken -- I was mistaken about my own Native heritage for many years until we did the genealogical research. (I thought I was part Ojibwe/Chippewa; I'm actually part Mohawk, through a different line of my father's ancestry). So many of us in America have deeply mixed lineage; my own non-Native line arrived here as recently as the turn of the 20th century and as long ago as colonial times, so I can trace my lineage to half the countries in Western Europe. Most of us don't know our entire lineage and many of us have some confusion about that lineage. Something so ordinary as a potential mistaken belief about one's own history is becoming a political issue because Brown's supporters have to make big elections over small things.

The GOP has a real chance to recapture the Senate, and one thing they need to do to win is hold onto as many of their existing seats as possible. Massachusetts is one of the Democrats' best chances for a pickup and so the GOP is going to pour money into this race to hold it by any means necessary. And making this race about who Warren's great-great-grandpa is fares much better for Brown than making it about Brown's record as a Senator.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post May 17 2012, 02:53 PM
Post #50


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Oh, I wouldn't let Ted pull me off course with his howlers of lies. But I did find it amusing that he lies in his support of serial liars. When even akaCG refuses to back him up you know his pants are on fire
.


Rich coming from the likes of you Rap. If there is anyone who goes the extra mile to stretch reality for a (leftist) viewpoint its YOU. and akaCG eats your lunch in debate.

as for Warren i cant wait to vote against her and see her lose to Brown.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post May 17 2012, 03:48 PM
Post #51


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 17 2012, 08:16 AM) *
...
Heh, but you have to admit that the "criticism" of Warren is a lot like the birther thing about Obama, ...
...

Only to someone who can't tell the difference between a case involving documents that actually exist (i.e. in Obama's case) and one involving documents that actually don't (i.e. in Warren's case).

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 17 2012, 08:16 AM) *
...
I've noticed that the academic papers thing has fizzled out. ...
...

Nah. I've just been busy with the "Fauxcahontas" side of the topic, seeing as how it's the one where developments have advanced at a fast and furious pace over the last few days. See my response to "Raptavio" below, where I revisit the "academic papers thing".

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
... I did find it amusing that ["Ted"] lies in his support of serial liars. When even akaCG refuses to back him up you know his pants are on fire.
...

What I refused to back "Ted" up about is his obviously false contention that he said "maybe". He should have been a mensch and eaten his crow, regardless of the fact that it was served to him by "nighttimer". That's all.

Otherwise, I fully support "Ted" in his support of Scott Brown and opposition to Brown's serially lying opponent, Elizabeth "Dances with Hogwash" Warren.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
...
I like your comparison of this Warren non-issue with the birther non-issue. ...
...

See my response to "AM" on this above.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
...
... I also agree the academic issue has no legs, given the two easily rebuttable criticisms of her papers came from A) a rank partisan ...
...

Rebuttable? Sure. Rebutted, however? Nah.

And, as long as you're impugning McCardle's credibility on the basis of her "rank partisan[ship]", ... let's take a looksee at the source of the first "rebuttal" you cited - The Roosevelt Institute - which describes itself as follows (bolding mine):
QUOTE
...
The Roosevelt Institute is a nonprofit organization devoted to carrying forward the legacy and values of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt by developing progressive ideas ... The Roosevelt Institute is crafting a New Deal for the 21st century. Three pillars underpin this mission: developing and promoting compelling new ideas and bold long-term visions, developing the next generation of progressive leaders, ... Our goals are to promote economic growth now and in the future; push for more equitable distribution of wealth; ... The Four Freedoms Center think tank, launched in 2009, incubates and promotes rigorous, progressive policy ideas and value narratives, ... The Campus Network and Pipeline are developing the next generation of progressive leaders ...

Link: http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/about

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
...
... and someone paid off to write his criticism, which even he admits reflects poorly on his own credibility.
...

What he admits (and regrets) is that the source of his funding left him open to argumentum ad hominem attacks (e.g. "paid off") from people who "mysteriously" fail to apply such terms to those on their own ideological/partisan side (e.g. Roosevelt Institute).

ps1:
Here's the "easily rebuttable" Dranove & Millenson critique of the Warren et al. 2005 paper, btw, for anyone interested:

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/resear...yth_vs_fact.pdf

ps2:
I've already debunked the notion that Dranove is a "rank partisan" earlier in the thread. Here, just in case anyone might tempted to advance it, is a preemptive debunking of the notion that Millenson is a "rank partisan" amenable to being "paid off" by Big Evil Insurance:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-mi..._b_1394092.html

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post May 17 2012, 03:59 PM
Post #52


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Ted @ May 17 2012, 10:53 AM) *
Rich coming from the likes of you Rap. If there is anyone who goes the extra mile to stretch reality for a (leftist) viewpoint its YOU. and akaCG eats your lunch in debate.

as for Warren i cant wait to vote against her and see her lose to Brown.


Oh, so that's how you get to 10,000 posts. Limit your thoughts to lame one-liners and claim you said things you clearly did not and would know if you only read your own postings.

Something about your "eats your lunch" crack seemed familiar. Then I remembered who your choice was for Best Overall Debater.

QUOTE(Ted @ Aug 9 2011, 04:38 PM) *
akaCG is my choice


Well, at least we know where that one vote came from.

Not much of a prognosticator, are ya, Ted? laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post May 17 2012, 04:01 PM
Post #53


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 17 2012, 11:59 AM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ May 17 2012, 10:53 AM) *
Rich coming from the likes of you Rap. If there is anyone who goes the extra mile to stretch reality for a (leftist) viewpoint its YOU. and akaCG eats your lunch in debate.

as for Warren i cant wait to vote against her and see her lose to Brown.


Oh, so that's how you get to 10,000 posts. Limit your thoughts to lame one-liners and claim you said things you clearly did not and would know if you only read your own postings.

Something about your "eats your lunch" crack seemed familiar. Then I remembered who your choice was for Best Overall Debater.

QUOTE(Ted @ Aug 9 2011, 04:38 PM) *
akaCG is my choice


Well, at least we know where that one vote came from.

Not much of a prognosticator, are ya, Ted? laugh.gif

hey - each to his own NT.

and you know damn well most of my posts are not "one liners". .......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post May 17 2012, 04:31 PM
Post #54


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ May 17 2012, 10:48 AM) *
What I refused to back "Ted" up about is his obviously false contention that he said "maybe". He should have been a mensch and eaten his crow, regardless of the fact that it was served to him by "nighttimer". That's all.


I didn't suggest otherwise.

QUOTE
Otherwise, I fully support "Ted" in his support of Scott Brown and opposition to Brown's serially lying opponent, Elizabeth "Dances with Hogwash" Warren.


Might as well protect the fanboy who keeps hiding behind your skirts, sure.
And you've certainly done your level best to paint her as such, based on very thin gruel indeed. Let us discuss that below.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
...
I like your comparison of this Warren non-issue with the birther non-issue. ...
...

See my response to "AM" on this above.


Actually it's all about documents that don't exist in both cases -- in Obama's, documents that show he's anything other than a native born American, and in Warren's, documents that show Warren received any preference in hiring due to claimed or actual minority status.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *
...
... I also agree the academic issue has no legs, given the two easily rebuttable criticisms of her papers came from A) a rank partisan ...
...

Rebuttable? Sure. Rebutted, however? Nah.


No, both McCardle's and Dranove's criticisms were, in fact, rebutted, as I cited in both cases, and linked to the rebuttals of each. Which you concede below, so it baffles me why you say it wasn't done.

QUOTE
And, as long as you're impugning McCardle's credibility on the basis of her "rank partisan[ship]", ... let's take a looksee at the source of the first "rebuttal" you cited - The Roosevelt Institute -


I'm impugning her credibility on the basis of her complete misrepresentation of the facts, as detailed by the article published on the Roosevelt Institute's site. I'm impugning her motives based on her partisanship.

Feel free to find the flaws in the rebuttal though. You have the paper by Warren et. al., you have McCardle's article, you have the rebuttal -- have at it. I find that on the facts, that liberal partisan group you chose to dismiss without looking at the merits wins hands-down and makes McCardle look like a fact-free hit piece.

QUOTE
What he admits (and regrets) is that the source of his funding left him open to argumentum ad hominem attacks (e.g. "paid off") from people who "mysteriously" fail to apply such terms to those on their own ideological/partisan side (e.g. Roosevelt Institute).


An academic receiving money for a scholarly work when that money is for the express purpose of finding a predetermined conclusion is a violation of both academic and scientific rigor, particularly when that funding source is not fully and openly disclosed as a disclaimer in the paper. Dranove, at least, mentioned the funding source in a single line at the end of his paper.

QUOTE
ps1:
Here's the "easily rebuttable" Dranove & Millenson critique of the Warren et al. 2005 paper, btw, for anyone interested:

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/resear...yth_vs_fact.pdf


And its rebuttal has already been linked as well. Odd you have nothing to say about it. You do like to bluster when you have nothing of substance to add....


QUOTE(Ted @ May 17 2012, 11:01 AM) *
hey - each to his own NT.

and you know damn well most of my posts are not "one liners". .......


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif Good thing you put a line break in there, sparky.

Note to akaCG: Feel free to assign a value to "sparky" on the "Dude" scale of offensiveness of terms of address.

This post has been edited by Raptavio: May 17 2012, 04:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post May 17 2012, 07:13 PM
Post #55


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 12:31 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 17 2012, 10:48 AM) *

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 09:09 AM) *

...
I like your comparison of this Warren non-issue with the birther non-issue. ...
...

See my response to "AM" on this above.

Actually it's all about documents that don't exist in both cases -- in Obama's, documents that show he's anything other than a native born American, and in Warren's, documents that show Warren received any preference in hiring due to claimed or actual minority status.
...

Heh. "Nice" try at sleight-of-hand substitution, there. Still trying desperately to shift attention away from what the "Fauxcahontas" aspect of all this is about (i.e. the non-existence of documents backing up Warren's claims of Cherokee lineage) and pretending that it's about the non-existence of documents proving that she (and Penn and Harvard) gamed the affirmative action system, I see.

Tsk, tsk.

Your having to resort to the "documents that show he's anything other than a native born American" syntactical convolution for purposes of trying to make your "Actually, it's all about documents that don't exist in both cases" square peg appear round made me chuckle as well.

The problem, my dear "Raptavio", is that ...

... the "birther" argument involves denying the validity of Obama's claim to U.S. citizenship despite the fact that documents proving the validity of said claim DO exist, whereas ...

... the "Fauxcahontas" argument involves denying the validity of Warren's claim to Cherokee lineage because of the fact that documents proving the validity of her claim DO NOT exist.

Big difference.

This post has been edited by akaCG: May 17 2012, 08:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post May 17 2012, 08:40 PM
Post #56


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ May 17 2012, 02:13 PM) *
Heh. "Nice" try at sleight-of-hand substitution, there. Still trying desperately to shift attention away from what the "Fauxcahontas" aspect of all this is about (i.e. the non-existence of documents backing up Warren's claims of Cherokee lineage) and pretending that it's about the non-existence of documents proving that she (and Penn and Harvard) gamed the affirmative action system, I see.


Still trying desperately to shift attention away from any actual evidence of deception or use of minority status as employment leverage, I see.

Tsk, tsk.

Because -- guess what -- none of it matters, at all, without that.

And while you can make hay as much as you want over a question of Ms. Warren's claimed, believed, or actual heritage, it won't distract the voters from considering Scott Brown's record as Senator.

Scream it from the rooftops, akaCG, but like the tale told by an idiot, it will simply be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post May 17 2012, 10:29 PM
Post #57


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,346
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 04:40 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 17 2012, 02:13 PM) *
Heh. "Nice" try at sleight-of-hand substitution, there. Still trying desperately to shift attention away from what the "Fauxcahontas" aspect of all this is about (i.e. the non-existence of documents backing up Warren's claims of Cherokee lineage) and pretending that it's about the non-existence of documents proving that she (and Penn and Harvard) gamed the affirmative action system, I see.


Still trying desperately to shift attention away from any actual evidence of deception or use of minority status as employment leverage, I see.

Tsk, tsk.

Because -- guess what -- none of it matters, at all, without that.

And while you can make hay as much as you want over a question of Ms. Warren's claimed, believed, or actual heritage, it won't distract the voters from considering Scott Brown's record as Senator.

Scream it from the rooftops, akaCG, but like the tale told by an idiot, it will simply be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


Therein lies the rub, the question from the subtitle of this thread: Too fraudulent to be elected?

If no fraud had been committed, then there's no reason to even bring this up. Warren may have knowingly or unknowingly claimed Native American blood without the proper documentation that acaCG requires, but as with the academician argument, it's not up to him. It's up to the media and electorate to make this any sort of issue. Doesn't seem to be happening. Meanwhile, Warren has plenty of public performances from which to draw upon when she gets the campaign going full swing. She also can claim the initiative to get a consumer support branch of the government started so that people won't be fooled by various sneaky tricks, something that the Republicans fought fangs and claws against, with a few jabs of the trident thrown in there.

Well, however Warren decides to approach the campaign, she has lots to choose from. Brown? Not so much. Maybe enough for his base, but certainly not for the general electorate of Massachusetts.

You know, all those Ted Kennedy fans. Warren comes off as such a scrapper, and this could very well be her winning quality. Now with the endorsement of Ted as the loser, she's bound to win. You see, he figured that the Republicans were going to take all of Congress in 2010, but they only got the House. So that left them with just the filibuster angle to block legislation and no power to push their own agenda.

My prognostication is that a Demo super majority will happen in the Senate, and that the House will go back to the Demos because stuff really has to get done, and people know it now. The only party that has a chance of getting this stuff done, such as Wall Street reform to avoid a repeat of the Meltdown of 2008, is the Democratic Party with Warren in there pushing her seemingly favorite thing: consumer protection.

Meanwhile, Brown likes to shift the monetary burden of Wall Street failure onto the taxpayers. He's a fair-weather capitalist and a foul-weather socialist, which seems to be the way Wall Street works in the 21st Century. And now everybody knows it, whether they want to admit to it or not. It's what happened right before our eyes, and of course a whole big bunch of cameras.

It's very tough to rewrite history when so much of it is recorded and owned by so many different organizations and individuals, plus with the beat-all-end-all repository of the Internet. So, if documentation actually exists that proves Warren committed fraud, I'm sure that akaCG will dig it up, or maybe one of his blogger buds. He has speculated on how things might have gone down, which is worth almost exactly nothing. I think maybe a green stamp.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: May 17 2012, 10:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post May 18 2012, 12:50 AM
Post #58


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 04:40 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 17 2012, 02:13 PM) *

Heh. "Nice" try at sleight-of-hand substitution, there. Still trying desperately to shift attention away from what the "Fauxcahontas" aspect of all this is about (i.e. the non-existence of documents backing up Warren's claims of Cherokee lineage) and pretending that it's about the non-existence of documents proving that she (and Penn and Harvard) gamed the affirmative action system, I see.

Still trying desperately to shift attention away from any actual evidence of deception or use of minority status as employment leverage, I see.

Tsk, tsk.

Because -- guess what -- none of it matters, at all, without that.
...

Oh, but it does, "Raptavio". It does.

People aren't that stupid. They're perfectly capable of realizing why Warren made sure to describe herself as an ethnic minority while climbing up the last couple of rungs on the academic ladder, as well as why Penn Law and then Harvard Law (especially at that particular time in Harvard Law's history) made sure to tout her status as such. Especially since, once she did get to the top rung of said academic ladder ("Hold on there! Harvard isn't #1! We are!", I can hear the Yale Law crowd strenuously protesting), she stopped doing so. Again, people aren't that stupid. Even Bay Staters who vote Dem. wink.gif

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 04:40 PM) *
...
And while you can make hay as much as you want over a question of Ms. Warren's claimed, believed, or actual heritage, it won't distract the voters from considering Scott Brown's record as Senator.
...

It may indeed turn out that enough Massachusetts voters will choose to ignore Warren's "Dancing with Hogwash" and vote along ideological/partisan lines (this is still a deep "blue" state, after all). I doubt it, but it could indeed happen.

We'll see.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 17 2012, 04:40 PM) *
...
Scream it from the rooftops, akaCG, but like the tale told by an idiot, it will simply be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Oh, it might not result in Ms. Warren's losing the election. But Warren's "Now I'm a Cherokee. Now I'm not." act will always signify plenty not only in regards to her character, but also in regards to the authenticity of her interest in "[People of Native American heritage] like me" to have lunch and stuff with (something that even the afore-quoted senior editor at the New Yorker magazine cottoned onto).

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post May 19 2012, 02:46 AM
Post #59


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



The "Fauxcahontas" saga continues ...

A couple of weeks ago, the Warren campaign offered two items in support of Ms. Warren's claims to Cherokee lineage: a statement from the chief genealogist of the Boston-based New England Historic Genealogical Society averring that Warren was indeed 1/32 Cherokee and an undated newspaper clipping from a Muskegee Sunday Phoenix article that mentioned a 1984 cook book titled Pow Wow Chow:A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes : Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole to which Ms. Warren contributed 5 recipes.

The first item was quickly debunked and, after a couple of attempts at equivocation/backtracking, the genealogist ended up retracting his statement while essentially blaming the media for misunderstanding what he meant.

And today, the other shoe dropped.

It appears that Ms. Warren's recipes are, not to put too fine a point on it, ... plagiarized.

Two of them ("Cold Omelets with Crab Meat" and "Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing") are word-for-word identical to two recipes published by New York Times syndicated culinary columnist Pierre Franey in 1979. Monsieur Franey begins his article thusly:
QUOTE
...
When I was a chef at Le Pavillon [Cold Omelets With Crab Meat] enjoyed a considerable esteem in America, and the owner, Henri Soule, had one particular specialty that he would ask to have prepared for his pet customers. The dish was a great favorite of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Cole Porter. ...
...

Now, my French is pretty rusty, but I'm quite sure that "pavillon" is not French for "pow wow".

Another recipe ("Mexican Oatmeal Soup") seems to have been copied almost word for word (Warren's version says "brown" instead of "browned") from Yvonne Young Tarr's 1972 New York Times Bread and Soup Cookbook.

Another recipe ("Herbed Tomatoes") bears a striking resemblance to one published by Better Homes & Gardens magazine in 1959.

My oh my. The more one peels the Warren "onion", the more tears. (in my case, of laughter; historical reference to the "Trail of Tears" fully intended)

Will this particular latest development in the "Fauxcahontas" saga leave a bad enough taste (pun intended) in Bay State voters' minds? There's no way to really know, of course.

I did find it hilarious, however, that a recipe in the aforementioned Pow Wow Chow cookbook on the page facing Ms. Warren's (that is to say, Monsieur Franey's) "Cold Omelets with Crab Meat" recipe is one for cooking ... duck.

Could a cooked duck claim 1/32 cooked goose heritage?

laugh.gif

This post has been edited by akaCG: May 19 2012, 02:48 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post May 19 2012, 01:11 PM
Post #60


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(akaCG @ May 18 2012, 10:46 PM) *
And today, the other shoe dropped.

It appears that Ms. Warren's recipes are, not to put too fine a point on it, ... plagiarized.
*snip*
Could a cooked duck claim 1/32 cooked goose heritage?

laugh.gif


A truly original recipe is incredibly rare. The odds of a duck being 1/32 goose are probably higher (maybe there's a guck or two in this world) than the odds of anyone today directly plagarizing from a magazine written in 1959. Who has that lying around? It's unsurprising because recipes go around the world, passed down from generations and sometimes bits are picked up and jotted down to form a printed recipe (or the other way around, the family takes a recipe from somewhere and calls it their own, and its passed on and no one knows the better). I have found a few identical or nearly identical 'family recipes' passed on to me from squadron to squadron (an old tradition, spouses often made recipe books and printed them passing them out as a gift at a farewell function or christmas, or fundraiser or whatever....After about ten-fifteen different squadrons this became very evident, and everyone thinks their family was "the one" that created it.

I really know very little about this topic beyond the above observation. Not familiar with Ms Warren at all, I would only have one question....has she used her Cherokee pseudo-status for personal gain? If so, she is a fraud, UNLESS she was unaware of her true lineage and believed herself to be 1/32 Cherokee (which is really an infintesimally small portion, really I'm Swiss/Italian but if you go far enough back who knows I probably have some part of Viking or Irish, since I think nearly every Irish person is part Viking). No one should have any advantage based on so small a bloodline.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: May 19 2012, 01:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 23rd, 2018 - 07:27 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.