Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Elizabeth Warren
America's Debate > In the News > Election 2012
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Google
akaCG
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?

Google
Paladin Elspeth
This is not what I heard on Rachel Maddow the other night. I heard that Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee, the same amount of Native American ancestry as the new chief of the Cherokee nation is. But really, who cares? Didn't Marco Rubio say that his dad was an exiled Cuban when he in fact wasn't?

As far as the "too fraudulent" question goes, I'm not sure any more what constitutes "too fraudulent" when it comes to people running for and maintaining high office in this country. I have listened to a bunch of politicians suggesting all kinds of things and not contradicting some of the more wild-eyed fans at their rallies.

I have seen a President talk about WMD's in Iraq and warn that the "smoking gun might come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

I know the purpose of your thread is to discredit Ms. Warren. As a member here, it is your right to post topics such as this one. But I would suggest to any reader that what Professor Warren has done speaks well of her intentions, i.e., to serve the people, the vast majority of whom are not in the upper 1% of wage earners. The development of the Consumer Protection Agency was much needed, considering that some corporations out there should be named "Caveat Emptor." Yes, I know the thought held by some that government regulation is bad regardless of its intent. But I'm also certain of the need for an FDA and OSHA, that peoples' safety has been greater since the inception of these agencies.

Obviously, if you think the unfettered free market is the be-all and end-all of our civilization, you probably won't like Elizabeth Warren or what she stands for. If you, however, like the idea that there is an entity to whom corporations must answer when they are negligent and commit malfeasance, that the government, while it is far from perfect, is here to protect the citizens from victimization, please consider electing Elizabeth Warren to the U.S. Senate.
AuthorMusician
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?


No to both because 1) she actually does have Native American blood and 2) Massachusetts likes its socialized medicine. Nobody really cares if some academicians (love typing that out) have torn apart her papers and books. That's what they're paid to do, and if anyone thinks that health care expenses don't lead to bankruptcies, they're living in an ivory tower protected by either tenure or piles of cash, or both.

I'm pretty certain that the Massachusetts electorate will choose Liz over Scotty despite, or even because of, these attacks. The evil spell of the TEA types has worn off, or someone went down to New Orleans and got themselves a mojo hand <up ZZ Top>. The state is fundamentally liberal, and Brown slithered in during one of those interesting, yet quite transient, times in politics.
BoF
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ May 12 2012, 12:44 PM) *
I know the purpose of your thread is to discredit Ms. Warren. As a member here, it is your right to post topics such as this one.

That statement hits the nail on the head PE. While akaCG has the “right” to start such a topic, I hope members are sophisticated enough to realize that this is just more of his blatant and shameless propaganda onslaught.

He’s already dropped this bit of propaganda on the “New Political Joke” and “News that isn’t a shock to you” threads, so why not start a thread to further use the board as a propaganda dump.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...amp;p=100006636
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...amp;p=100007051

I think he's either obsessed or scared to death of Elizabeth Warren.
Raptavio
The claims about Warren misusing her sliver of Native heritage (less than my own, and I never use it either) in order to gain favoritism in employment are false.

They will hurt her in her election against Scott Brown, of course, because lies that are repeated loudly enough (and there's a lot of money for volume) get believed as truth.

As for the papers? Eh. It's easy to find economists and lawyers to trash one another's methodology. Especially when there's brazen partisanship involved.

But there will always be true believers and useful idiots who slurp up any gruel offered to trash one's political adversaries and lionize one's own.

But that's the state of politics in the modern era, where bad Senators and their allies love to make big elections about small things.
trumpetplayer
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 12 2012, 06:30 PM) *
The claims about Warren misusing her sliver of Native heritage (less than my own, and I never use it either) in order to gain favoritism in employment are false.

They will hurt her in her election against Scott Brown, of course, because lies that are repeated loudly enough (and there's a lot of money for volume) get believed as truth.

As for the papers? Eh. It's easy to find economists and lawyers to trash one another's methodology. Especially when there's brazen partisanship involved.

But there will always be true believers and useful idiots who slurp up any gruel offered to trash one's political adversaries and lionize one's own.

But that's the state of politics in the modern era, where bad Senators and their allies love to make big elections about small things.


Not so fast. This is not a small thing especially to people like ME who are actually 1/4 Iroquois Indian. Not that I need to claim or use my minority status to hold or get a job (and I have NEVER used it, nor have my employers). This is FAR worse than a 50 year bullying claim. It's also good to note that ALL of her so-called papers (that Obama used as a basis in fact) are a sham when actually peer reviewed but that is another topic. This is another shining example of extreme bias by Democrats and the media to cover up and condone this behavior.
akaCG
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 12 2012, 07:30 PM) *
The claims about Warren misusing her sliver of Native heritage (less than my own, and I never use it either) in order to gain favoritism in employment are false.
...

That's quite the categorical assertion, there. Care to share the basis upon which it rests? Does it amount to more than, say, "Because Rachel Maddow said so."?

Oh, and the article you cite? I got a chuckle out of the headline ("Elizabeth Warren Did Not Claim Minority Status, Records Show"), considering that in the body of the article we find:
QUOTE
...
A third document obtained by the AP Thursday indicated that the University of Pennsylvania, where Warren also worked, identified her as a minority professor.
...
A report by a committee established to review the status of minority faculty at the University of Pennsylvania identifies Warren as a minority, however, without elaborating.
...

Perhaps it was the "Asian" box that she checked at Penn, and then again at Harvard. Oh, wait. That wouldn't have been as helpful. Never mind.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 12 2012, 07:30 PM) *
...
As for the papers? Eh. It's easy to find economists and lawyers to trash one another's methodology. Especially when there's brazen partisanship involved.
...

Heh. Riiiight.

Here's the Northwestern University "brazen partisan" who described Ms. Warren's study as one in which "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."

And, for good measure, here' a bit more (note: you're gonna have to don a Social Scientist/Statistician "let's take a look at the evidence", as opposed to a Lefty Partisan "let's fling the ad hominems" hat, I'm afraid) regarding Ms. Warren's academic research ... shall we say ... "stylings":

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...y-study/18826/#

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...-so-bad/18834/#

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 12 2012, 07:30 PM) *
...
But there will always be true believers and useful idiots who slurp up any gruel offered to trash one's political adversaries and lionize one's own.
...

Unless/until you can back up your earlier ("false", "lies", "brazen partisanship", etc.) assertions, I'm afraid that the above can only be described as a prime example of ... projection.

ps:
I didn't provide a link to the definition/description of the term "projection" for your benefit. I'm fully aware that you're fully aware of its meaning.



EDITED TO ADD:

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 12 2012, 02:55 PM) *
...
... 1) she actually does have Native American blood ...
...

Got evidence thereof that amounts to more than, say, "I saw/heard it on Rachel Maddow's show"?
nighttimer
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 12 2012, 10:28 PM) *
Got evidence thereof that amounts to more than, say, "I saw/heard it on Rachel Maddow's show"?


Let us take a moment to bask in the staggering chutzpah and odious hypocrisy of an individual who started a thread to wonder how a 16-year-old girl SHOULD have responded to her boyfriend's death now demanding "evidence" about anything. dry.gif

But for giggles, let's play the game.

QUOTE
BOSTON -- Records show that the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts identified her race as "white" on an employment record at the University of Texas and declined to apply for admission to Rutgers Law School under a program for minority students.

The records on Elizabeth Warren were obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday. Warren's heritage has been under scrutiny after it surfaced that she had listed herself as having Native American heritage in law school directories.

Warren's campaign said the records reinforce her earlier statements that she never relied on a claim of minority status to get teaching jobs. She has criticized the campaign of Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown for suggesting that might be the case.

A third document obtained by the AP Thursday indicated that the University of Pennsylvania, where Warren also worked, identified her as a minority professor.

Brown has called on Warren to release all law school applications and personnel files from the universities where she taught.

Warren worked at the University of Texas from 1983 to 1987, when she took a job at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

A report by a committee established to review the status of minority faculty at the University of Pennsylvania identifies Warren as a minority, however, without elaborating.

The new documents paint a fuller picture of Warren's law school record.

On the Rutgers application, Warren wrote "No" in response to the question: "Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?"

Warren graduated from Rutgers in 1976.

On a personnel file from the University of Texas, Warren checked the box "White" when asked to select "the racial category or categories with which you most closely identify."

The categories included a box for "American Indian or Alaska Native," which Warren did not check.


If this is the worst akaCG and the right-wing blogs he frequents to find out what he should be hot and bothered about have to throw at Elizabeth Warren, they don't have much to slow her down from making Scott Brown an asterisk in Massachusetts politics.

This matters even less than Romney's 50-year-old bullying story. rolleyes.gif
akaCG
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 12 2012, 11:56 PM) *
...
But for giggles, let's play the game.
...

Duuuude, ...

That's the very same article that "Raptavio" already cited earlier, and which I already addressed in my response to him.

Sure hope you don't mind if I respond to your post by quoting none other than ... you:

"If you can't keep up you're just going to have to catch up." (alternative phrasing: "[P]lease [t]ry to catch up if you can't keep up.")

Good grief.

nighttimer
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 12:24 AM) *
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 12 2012, 11:56 PM) *
...
But for giggles, let's play the game.
...

Duuuude, ...

That's the very same article that "Raptavio" already cited earlier, and which I already addressed in my response to him.

Sure hope you don't mind if I respond to your post by quoting none other than ... you:

"If you can't keep up you're just going to have to catch up." (alternative phrasing: "[P]lease [t]ry to catch up if you can't keep up.")

Good grief.


Here's the thing Charlie Brown, Raptavio cited the very same article. I'm quoting it. See the difference?

Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to debunk the following statement: Records show that the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts identified her race as white" on an employment record at the University of Texas and declined to apply for admission to Rutgers Law School under a program for minority students.

When you do that you'll have something substantial worthy of debating. As it stands, you don't.

Stick to fantasizing on how a 16-year-old girl thinks. You're no good at that either, but at least there you can make things up as you go along. rolleyes.gif
Google
akaCG
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 13 2012, 12:42 AM) *
...
Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to debunk the following statement: Records show that the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts identified her race as white" on an employment record at the University of Texas and declined to apply for admission to Rutgers Law School under a program for minority students.
...

Heh. Nice try.

Your assignment, my dear chap, should you choose to accept it, is to explain Ms. Warren's choice to "suddenly" declare herself as a "minority" in such close temporal proximity to her becoming employed in the Ivy League (first at Penn, then at Harvard; see list below).

List of Ivy League universities/colleges (alphabetical; bolding mine; note: no part of the University of Texas or Rutgers University feature in it):

Brown University

Columbia University

Cornell University

Dartmouth College

Harvard University

Princeton University

University of Pennsylvania

Yale University


Again, ...

Good grief.

nighttimer
Explain what? What is a listing of Ivy League schools supposed to mean anyway?

Despite Fox News frothing at the mouth and you regurgitating it here, there's no evidence that Warren herself described herself as a minority at Harvard or Penn University. The burden falls upon you dear boy to prove she did, not me to prove she didn't.

I'm not even sure why anyone cares if Warren did list herself as a minority. Does it matter that Scott Brown was a Cosmo centerfold? Is it really more important than issues that really mean something to voters such as big banks blowing billions of dollars in high-risk investments?
QUOTE
Questions have arisen as to whether Warren used supposed Cherokee ancestry to take advantage of universities' minority-hiring programs.

Paleologos said JPMorgan’s losses give Warren an opening to push the scandal to the back burner.

"You've got an issue working against Elizabeth Warren followed by an issue that’s working for (her)," he said. "Both may cancel each other out."

A Boston Herald/UMass-Lowell poll this fall showed that Warren’s Wall Street stance resonates with voters.

Respondents picked her over Brown 47 percent to 29 percen
t when asked who "would do a better job of proposing appropriate regulation of Wall Street."

UMass-Lowell professor Frank Talty said such numbers "show that voters in Massachusetts agree with her (stance)" on the issue.


When the voters go to the polls in November we will have to see if they consider a meaningless politically-motivated flap over how much Cherokee blood Elizabeth Warren has matters more than which candidate would do a better job of keeping arrogant bankers like Jaime Dimon in check.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 12 2012, 10:28 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 12 2012, 02:55 PM) *
...
... 1) she actually does have Native American blood ...
...

Got evidence thereof that amounts to more than, say, "I saw/heard it on Rachel Maddow's show"?


Apparently there is a paper trail on this:

QUOTE
BOSTON -- A genealogist in Massachusetts has uncovered evidence that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren does have Native American heritage as she claims.

Christopher Child of the New England Historic and Genealogy Society said Monday he found an 1894 document in which Warren's great-great-great grandmother is listed as Cherokee, which would make the Harvard Law School professor 1/32nd American Indian. Child says more research is needed.


Source

That's good enough for me, but since plenty of evidence has been brought forth that Warren never misused her Native American heritage to get ahead, it's rather moot. The big fraud therefore goes to the Brown campaign and the right-wing echo chamber.
akaCG
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 13 2012, 03:11 AM) *
... What is a listing of Ivy League schools supposed to mean anyway?...
...

"Funny" how Ms. Warren discovered her Native American roots just prior to making it to the law school equivalent of the Major Leagues.

QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 13 2012, 03:11 AM) *
...
... there's no evidence that Warren herself described herself as a minority at Harvard or Penn University. ...
...

Yeah, I'm sure that Penn and then Harvard just took it upon themselves, utterly unbeknownst to her, to list her as a minority. Uh huh.

Here's your evidence, coming to you from Warren herself (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):
"I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/...leid=1061128808

Are Ms. Warren's own words sufficient evidence of her having described herself as a minority, Mr. Journalist?

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 13 2012, 08:03 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 12 2012, 10:28 PM) *

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 12 2012, 02:55 PM) *

...
... 1) she actually does have Native American blood ...
...

Got evidence thereof that amounts to more than, say, "I saw/heard it on Rachel Maddow's show"?

Apparently there is a paper trail on this:
...
Source
...

That paper trail turned out to be bogus (i.e. debunked). I provided a link regarding this in the Opening Post. Here it is again, in more explicit form:

"Genealogist for Elizabeth Warren 1/32 Cherokee claim goes silent, source document shown false."



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 13 2012, 08:03 AM) *
...
... plenty of evidence has been brought forth that Warren never misused her Native American heritage to get ahead, ...
...

Such as?
nighttimer
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 11:05 AM) *
Here's your evidence, coming to you from Warren herself (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):
"I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/...leid=1061128808

Are Ms. Warren's own words sufficient evidence of her having described herself as a minority, Mr. Journalist?


It might have been--had you not chosen to omit the rest of her "own words," Mr. Innuendo.

I'll correct that particular oversight by you. (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):
QUOTE
The Harvard Law professor argued she didn’t use her minority status to get her teaching jobs, and slammed her Republican rival U.S. Sen.Scott Brown for suggesting otherwise.

"The only one as I understand it who’s raising any question about whether or not I was qualified for my job is Scott Brown and I think I am qualified and frankly I'm a little shocked to hear anybody raise a question about whether or not I'm qualified to hold a job teaching," she said, pushing to put Brown on defense. "What does he think it takes for a woman to be qualified?"

Warren is looking to shake off the story of her Native American background, which has hounded her since the Herald first reported that Harvard Law School has touted Warren as a minority hire. She also listed herself as a minority in a law school directory for nine years between 1986 and 1995.

"Being Native American has been part of my story I guess since the day I was born," said Warren, who never mentioned her Native American heritage on the campaign trail even as she detailed much of her personal history to voters in speeches, statements and a video. "These are my family stories, I have lived in a family that has talked about Native American and talked about tribes since I was a little girl."


The obvious purpose by Scott Brown, Fox News and Mr. Innuendo who leans heavily on right-wing blogs and Wikipedia entries is to drop hints, imply slyly and try to suggest Warren unfairly cast herself as a minority to gain advantage and positions she wasn't qualified for.

If you can't win on the issues, try to make the other candidate the issue. It's an old playbook, but without any proof Warren claimed to be Native American to boost her career it is also baseless.

QUOTE
The Warren campaign confirmed on Monday that Ms. Warren had listed herself as a minority member in a legal directory, but that she had done nothing wrong and that Mr. Brown was creating smoke where there was no fire.

The Warren campaign has offered no hard proof that she is of American Indian heritage. But neither has the Brown campaign proved that she has benefited personally from the claim.

On Monday night, officials involved in her hiring at Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Texas and the University of Houston Law Center all said that she was hired because she was an outstanding teacher, and that her lineage was either not discussed or not a factor.

"To suggest that she needed some special advantage to be hired here or anywhere is just silly," said Jay Westbrook, chairman of business law at the University of Texas.

Officials at the University of Texas said earlier on Monday that electronic records listed Ms. Warren as white. "Based on a preliminary search of electronic records, her ethnicity group is white," said Annela Lopez, the university's open records coordinator.


Looks like the Republican War on Women has opened a breathtakingly cynical new front. dry.gif

akaCG
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 13 2012, 11:35 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 11:05 AM) *

Here's your evidence, coming to you from Warren herself (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):
"I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/...leid=1061128808

Are Ms. Warren's own words sufficient evidence of her having described herself as a minority, Mr. Journalist?

It might have been--had you not chosen to omit the rest of her "own words," Mr. Innuendo.

I'll correct that particular oversight by you. (I'll bold it for you so you don't miss it):
QUOTE
The Harvard Law professor argued she didn’t use her minority status to get her teaching jobs, and slammed her Republican rival U.S. Sen.Scott Brown for suggesting otherwise.

"The only one as I understand it who’s raising any question about whether or not I was qualified for my job is Scott Brown and I think I am qualified and frankly I'm a little shocked to hear anybody raise a question about whether or not I'm qualified to hold a job teaching," she said, pushing to put Brown on defense. "What does he think it takes for a woman to be qualified?"

Warren is looking to shake off the story of her Native American background, which has hounded her since the Herald first reported that Harvard Law School has touted Warren as a minority hire. She also listed herself as a minority in a law school directory for nine years between 1986 and 1995.

"Being Native American has been part of my story I guess since the day I was born," said Warren, who never mentioned her Native American heritage on the campaign trail even as she detailed much of her personal history to voters in speeches, statements and a video. "These are my family stories, I have lived in a family that has talked about Native American and talked about tribes since I was a little girl."

...

LOL.

Neither of the bolded bits has anything whatsoever to do with your earlier claim that there is no evidence that she described herself as a minority at Penn and then Harvard.

Man oh man. You can't even keep track of what argument you're trying to provide support for, it seems.

Sheesh.

nighttimer
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 12:23 PM) *
Neither of the bolded bits has anything whatsoever to do with your earlier claim that there is no evidence that she described herself as a minority at Penn and then Harvard.

Man oh man. You can't even keep track of what argument you're trying to provide support for, it seems.


Oh, that's okay. Because you haven't provided any evidence to support the contention Warren unjustly claimed minority status to boost her career.

Which is expected from someone who relies upon Wikipedia entries, right-wing blogs and a dead propagandist and smear merchant for his information.

Maybe you should stick to speculating what traumatized teenage girls think? blink.gif
akaCG
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 13 2012, 12:47 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 12:23 PM) *
Neither of the bolded bits has anything whatsoever to do with your earlier claim that there is no evidence that she described herself as a minority at Penn and then Harvard.

Man oh man. You can't even keep track of what argument you're trying to provide support for, it seems.

Oh, that's okay. Because you haven't provided any evidence to support the contention Warren unjustly claimed minority status to boost her career.
...

Other than evidence that she did indeed check the "Native American" box as she was climbing into the law school big leagues and evidence that the quality of the scholarship that put her "on the map" was so shoddy that it was described as not even rising to the level of a Harvard College undergraduate, let alone a Harvard Law School prof, that is.

Oy vey.

Raptavio
Oy vey yourself.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-12/news...vard-law-school

QUOTE
Officials at the colleges where she worked said the question of her heritage either didn’t come up, or had no effect on their hiring decision.


Perhaps it's time for you, akaCG, to present evidence that her hiring at any of the universities in question had anything to do with a claimed Native American heritage.

Also, an organization that refuses to get involved in a right-wing witch hunt is not, as described by you and the article you cited, running away or backing down. They're treating yellow journalism and idiotic politics as they should be treated.
trumpetplayer
Warren has MUCH to explain.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/upenn-al...versity-report/
akaCG
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 13 2012, 07:22 PM) *
Oy vey yourself.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-12/news...vard-law-school

QUOTE
Officials at the colleges where she worked said the question of her heritage either didn’t come up, or had no effect on their hiring decision.

...

I woudn't have expected them to say anything else. I can only imagine the grief (including the lawsuit kind) they would catch from the Native American community as a result of a spot that would have gone to a real Native American going to someone whose claims to Native American heritage have been demonstrated to be bogus.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 13 2012, 07:22 PM) *
...
Perhaps it's time for you, akaCG, to present evidence that her hiring at any of the universities in question had anything to do with a claimed Native American heritage.
...

The evidence I've presented is quite sufficient for reasonable suspicion thereof, especially when coupled with Ms. Warren's meandering explanations. This ain't either a civil or a criminal trial matter, and we're not in a courtroom.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 13 2012, 07:22 PM) *
...
Also, an organization that refuses to get involved in a right-wing witch hunt is not, as described by you and the article you cited, running away or backing down. They're treating yellow journalism and idiotic politics as they should be treated.

Nah. They got caught biting claiming more than they could chew show and changing their story a couple of times as a result. And it didn't even take 11 Associated Press "fact checkers" to do it. So now, they're clamming up.

Mike Wallace would have approved. Well, maybe not, since it involves a Liberal politician involved in a tight election against a Republican.
Raptavio
Right, akaCG's evidence is nil, and nil, and weasels by calling it 'reasonable' suspicion.

Done here.
akaCG
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 13 2012, 09:33 PM) *
Right, akaCG's evidence is nil, and nil, and weasels by calling it 'reasonable' suspicion.

Done here.

Heh.

Having not been able to deal with the evidence pointing to the fraudulence of Ms. Warren's claims to Native American heritage and the shoddiness of her academic research work-product, which this thread is about (check out the OP), you declare that you're "Done here."

How utterly "shocking".

AuthorMusician
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 13 2012, 09:48 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 13 2012, 09:33 PM) *
Right, akaCG's evidence is nil, and nil, and weasels by calling it 'reasonable' suspicion.

Done here.

Heh.

Having not been able to deal with the evidence pointing to the fraudulence of Ms. Warren's claims to Native American heritage and the shoddiness of her academic research work-product, which this thread is about (check out the OP), you declare that you're "Done here."

How utterly "shocking".


Yeah, your mind is made up and there's nothing more that can be said about that. You have failed to show that Warren misused her documented Native American blood, or at lest what we actually know about it indicates documentation of some sort, for her own personal gain. The directory listing had nothing to do with her being hired, and it can be argued that she indeed is considered a minority -- a woman -- for such things as SBA loans, had she ever applied for such. Within the context of her job, she probably was in the minority.

Warren's family goes way back in this country, apparently. So does mine, to the French-Canadian bloodline on my father's side. Due to the lack of European women during the frontier days, many men took Native American wives, and since there were no county records at the time, the bloodlines went undocumented. I suspect this is so from other evidence, such as an expert hunter/trapper/trader as a brother, another brother who had the classic Native American nose and some other empirical observations, similar to the high cheekbone thing.

I suppose Warren could get a DNA test to prove to you that she is right and you are wrong, but why? It's obvious that your mind is made up, and that is that. There's no vote to be gained, nor any votes to be lost if she merely ignores this barking noise from the far right from here on out.

I suppose this can be said: The swiftboating of Warren failed, but that will be more certain after Brown gets sent packing.
akaCG
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 14 2012, 07:04 AM) *
...
... You have failed to show that Warren misused her documented Native American blood, or at lest what we actually know about it indicates documentation of some sort, for her own personal gain.
...

1. There is no documentation backing up Warren's claim of Native American blood that wouldn't be laughed out of any self-respecting genealogy "court":
QUOTE
...
No reputable genealogist or genealogical organization would ever use a family newsletter by an amateur genealogist as the basis for an opinion. They require direct documentation from a certified copy of a birth or marriage certificate or some other objective evidence. While family newsletters, or family web postings may provide a useful tip as to where the real documentation may be, they are just as likely to be dead wrong encrustations of family myth that may or may not be true, but can’t be proven.
While family members may find these myths of interest, professionals like the New England Historic Genealogical Society and Christopher Child, or the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, where I have served on the Heraldry Committee, will not accept them as documentation for any kind of genealogical claim. And they certainly won’t take a chance of embarrassing themselves professionally by making a public statement on the basis of flimsy evidence they regard as little more than rumor.
...
... what in the world did the more than 160 year old New England Historic Genealogical Society and its genealogist Christopher Child think they were doing taking what they knew was only a family rumor, putting their own reputation behind it, and plastering it all over the press?
...
... now that the actual document has surfaced, attested to by the local state officer in charge of these vital records, they have refused to comment or revise their much-ballyhooed statements to the press on Warren’s Cherokee heritage. If they continue to do so, they will have gone well beyond making a professional error.
...
... barring a recantation, it appears the venerable New England Historic Genealogical Society and Christopher Child have colluded in an election fraud upon the people of Massachusetts to publicly and repeatedly advantage a candidate from the Harvard Law School for political office at the expense of their own professional standards and the evidence now staring them in the face. It is time for the press to call them to account.
...

Link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012...ssion-contd.php

Well, fat chance of that last bit happening.

2.
Whether Warren (and Penn and Harvard) gamed the affirmative action system is a side issue in this thread, one which has been foisted onto it by your side (beginning with post #5), as a way to avoid addressing in any substantive way the two issues brought up in the opening post (Warren's claim of Native American blood and the quality of her academic work).

Do I think that Warren (and Penn and Harvard) did indeed game the affirmative action system? Yup. Do I have "beyond a reasonable doubt" type evidence thereof? Nope. No more than you have "beyond a reasonable doubt" type evidence to support the following:
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 14 2012, 07:04 AM) *
...
... The directory listing had nothing to do with her being hired, ...
...

But there IS at least "preponderance of evidence"-level support for the claim that Warren is no more Native American than the average lily white blue eyed Oklahoman whose family history goes back to the late 1800s. And there IS at least "preponderance of evidence"-level support for the claim that Warren's scholarship (the medical bankruptcy research that put her on the academic "map" and made her a hero of the Left, anyway) is woefully shoddy at best and perhaps even Bellesiles-level fraudulent at worst.

And I have provided it.

And what has been the response? A smorgasbord of (paraphrasing) "Doesn't matter. Her intentions are good.", "Eh. Big dealio. Academics criticize each other's work all the time.", "Foxrightwingblogspropagandawitchhuntyellowjournalismechochamberwaronwomenli
es, so there."

Mighty "impressive", gotta say.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 14 2012, 07:04 AM) *
...
... and it can be argued that she indeed is considered a minority -- a woman -- for such things as SBA loans, had she ever applied for such. Within the context of her job, she probably was in the minority.
...

Yes, that can indeed be argued. Risibly. Not least, of course, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with her claim of Native American blood.

AuthorMusician
QUOTE(akaCG @ May 14 2012, 12:21 PM) *
Yes, that can indeed be argued. Risibly. Not least, of course, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with her claim of Native American blood.


Just for grins, when did she claim this and in what context? Are you only going by a directory entry? And was she actually listed as a Native American or merely as a minority faculty member? I'm wondering how much of this hand-to-mouth disease is self-inflicted.
Raptavio
On the 2010 "The Atlantic" report by Megan McArdle attacking Warren's scholarship, cited by the hit piece in Investors.com at the top of this article:

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roos...n-s-scholarship

Submitted for your consideration.

Was McArdle's critique valid peer review, or just a shoddy hit job of its own?
Paladin Elspeth
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 14 2012, 04:03 PM) *
On the 2010 "The Atlantic" report by Megan McArdle attacking Warren's scholarship, cited by the hit piece in Investors.com at the top of this article:

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roos...n-s-scholarship

Submitted for your consideration.

Was McArdle's critique valid peer review, or just a shoddy hit job of its own?

Looks like McArdle needs to reconsider calling other people hacks. Thank you for the link.

And while we're at it, just what were Scott Brown's credentials for recommending him to the U.S. Senate in the first place? After all, he is the one whom Ms. Warren hopes to replace.

Has Scott Brown laid claim to any sort of gravitas?
Raptavio
On Dranove's rebuke of the 2005 report of which Warren was a co-author:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/...edical-bankrup/

QUOTE
Dranove took $5,000 from the nation’s health insurance industry for his report, which he says he now regrets for the criticism of his impartiality it’s engendered.


Also, Himmelstein, Warren, et. al., tore apart Dranove's rebuke as well: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/w84.abstract

From the above ABCnews link:
QUOTE
Himmelstein’s referred me to a 2006 paper in which he replied to Dranove, whom he accuses of “several out and out errors.” Says Himmelstein: “They were paid by the insurance industry to make this critique… They were hired guns out to try and make a point, and used a variety of illegitimate techniques to make that point.”

Amlord
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?

Her heritage is irrelevant. I'll take her at her word that she has Cherokee in her blood.

Her scholarship is debatable but being a great scholar does not lead to being an effective politician. I do think it is the more relevant issue, however, because it shows her mindset: that the medical system in this country is broken. Some voters in Massachusetts may prefer this type of politician while I do 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?

The heritage piece is likely to have more traction. Ordinary voters aren't focused on whether Elizabeth Warren is a good lawyer or a good researcher.

Like it or not, this is the type of hit piece journalism that might cause a close election to go against her. Who knows what Massachusetts voters place emphasis on? Probably the sensationalism of claiming to be a minority is my guess.
BoF
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 14 2012, 04:09 PM) *
Like it or not, this is the type of hit piece journalism that might cause a close election to go against her. Who knows what Massachusetts voters place emphasis on? Probably the sensationalism of claiming to be a minority is my guess.


There is also a possibility that the negativity may backfire.

Right now it looks too close to call.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...arren-2093.html

One of the things political scientist will try to answer in the next decade or so, is whether all the negativity and money unleashed by Citizens United has diminishing returns.


(edited to remove unconstructive profanity reference)
Raptavio
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 14 2012, 04:09 PM) *
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?

Her heritage is irrelevant. I'll take her at her word that she has Cherokee in her blood.

Her scholarship is debatable but being a great scholar does not lead to being an effective politician. I do think it is the more relevant issue, however, because it shows her mindset: that the medical system in this country is broken. Some voters in Massachusetts may prefer this type of politician while I do 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?

The heritage piece is likely to have more traction. Ordinary voters aren't focused on whether Elizabeth Warren is a good lawyer or a good researcher.

Like it or not, this is the type of hit piece journalism that might cause a close election to go against her. Who knows what Massachusetts voters place emphasis on? Probably the sensationalism of claiming to be a minority is my guess.



It's a rare moment when Amlord posts something where I largely agree with him. This is one of those times. The only place we differ is that I agree with Dr. Warren that the medical system in this country is broken.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Raptavio @ May 14 2012, 06:03 PM) *
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 14 2012, 04:09 PM) *
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?

Her heritage is irrelevant. I'll take her at her word that she has Cherokee in her blood.

Her scholarship is debatable but being a great scholar does not lead to being an effective politician. I do think it is the more relevant issue, however, because it shows her mindset: that the medical system in this country is broken. Some voters in Massachusetts may prefer this type of politician while I do 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?

The heritage piece is likely to have more traction. Ordinary voters aren't focused on whether Elizabeth Warren is a good lawyer or a good researcher.

Like it or not, this is the type of hit piece journalism that might cause a close election to go against her. Who knows what Massachusetts voters place emphasis on? Probably the sensationalism of claiming to be a minority is my guess.



It's a rare moment when Amlord posts something where I largely agree with him. This is one of those times. The only place we differ is that I agree with Dr. Warren that the medical system in this country is broken.


Yes, and now Maddow is showing the clear difference between Brown and Warren: Brown is a Wall Street one-percenter surrogate who wants the taxpayer to pay for financial screw ups by the big shots, which he pulled off after the Meltdown of 2008. Warren wants to protect the rest of us from the breathtaking stupidity of the big shots, the cons who believe their own cons. It's in Maddow's opening clip from last night, which I just saw, so 5/14/12. Today is 5/15, and it's a nice sunny morning in Paradise (really, that's the name of this area).

This explains why these non-issues about Warren are so desperately promoted. The facts are against Brown's election, and his supporters know it. Ergo, they must attack Warren however they can, and this pathetic showing says volumes about how meager the pickings are. What's rather surprising is that the contest is so close right now, but let's just say that there is still plenty of time to publicly air Brown's record versus Warren's. I don't think the electorate of Massachusetts will be impressed with Brown. Rather the opposite. He did replace Ted Kennedy you know, one of the most reviled liberals of all time just about everywhere but the state in which he was reelected so many times, the state that forced Romney to go liberal in order to become governor.

I think the brown floater is about to be flushed.
BoF
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ May 13 2012, 07:23 PM) *

Oh, I suppose both Warren and Brown have much to explain to the people of Massachusetts.

They don’t have a damned thing to explain to the sleazy Tucker Carlson or his equally sleazy electronic rag, The Daily Caller, or for that matter Investors.com.

The information - or propaganda spewing, emotion riling - sewers some people swim in never ceases to amaze me.
Ted
QUOTE(BoF @ May 15 2012, 11:55 AM) *
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ May 13 2012, 07:23 PM) *

Oh, I suppose both Warren and Brown have much to explain to the people of Massachusetts.

They don’t have a damned thing to explain to the sleazy Tucker Carlson or his equally sleazy electronic rag, The Daily Caller, or for that matter Investors.com.

The information - or propaganda spewing, emotion riling - sewers some people swim in never ceases to amaze me.

so Bof - its ok to chase down Romney high school classmates and publish the little dirt they could dig up but its "sleazy" to question statements and actions by Warren? this goes well beyond "high school".

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
BoF
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 09:19 AM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ May 15 2012, 11:55 AM) *
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ May 13 2012, 07:23 PM) *

Oh, I suppose both Warren and Brown have much to explain to the people of Massachusetts.

They don’t have a damned thing to explain to the sleazy Tucker Carlson or his equally sleazy electronic rag, The Daily Caller, or for that matter Investors.com.

The information - or propaganda spewing, emotion riling - sewers some people swim in never ceases to amaze me.

so Bof - its ok to chase down Romney high school classmates and publish the little dirt they could dig up but its "sleazy" to question statements and actions by Warren? this goes well beyond "high school".

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

Unlike many of us, you do have a vote to use against Elizabeth Warren.

You may be right about the outcome, but …

Meanwhile, welcome back and enjoy your swim.
Ted
QUOTE(BoF @ May 16 2012, 04:54 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 09:19 AM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ May 15 2012, 11:55 AM) *
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ May 13 2012, 07:23 PM) *

Oh, I suppose both Warren and Brown have much to explain to the people of Massachusetts.

They don’t have a damned thing to explain to the sleazy Tucker Carlson or his equally sleazy electronic rag, The Daily Caller, or for that matter Investors.com.

The information - or propaganda spewing, emotion riling - sewers some people swim in never ceases to amaze me.

so Bof - its ok to chase down Romney high school classmates and publish the little dirt they could dig up but its "sleazy" to question statements and actions by Warren? this goes well beyond "high school".

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

Unlike many of us, you do have a vote to use against Elizabeth Warren.

You may be right about the outcome, but …

Meanwhile, welcome back and enjoy your swim.

It will be close but imo Brown is doing a great job and will be re elected.
nighttimer
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
Ted
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?
akaCG
QUOTE(Ted @ May 16 2012, 05:22 PM) *
...
I said it MAY not even be close.
...

C'mon, man. You did no such thing. Be a mensch, wouldja please?

BoF
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
nighttimer
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."
Raptavio
I see why Ted is so enamored with people like Scott Brown and Mitt Romney.
akaCG
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.
Ted
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
BoF
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
akaCG
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.

AuthorMusician
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.
Raptavio
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.
Ted
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.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.