Yeah, that's how her name wound up listed as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools' annual directory of minority law teachers from 1986 to 1995, hahahahaha........Correction: this thread is about an incredibly weak, irrelevant, ad hominem attack on Elizabeth Warren.
Apparently she was told growing up that she had Cherokee ancestry. She never used it to gain advantage, but apparently mentioned it on occasion. OH - MY - GOD!! Clearly that outweighs her massive academic and public policy resume. :roll:
Correction: this thread is about an incredibly weak, irrelevant, ad hominem attack on Elizabeth Warren.
Apparently she was told growing up that she had Cherokee ancestry. She never used it to gain advantage, but apparently mentioned it on occasion. OH - MY - GOD!! Clearly that outweighs her massive academic and public policy resume. :roll:
Now I see your problem. You have trouble discerning between FACT and OPINION. What you wrote above is called and OPINION. It appears YOU feel that one shouldn't question anyone's credibility on what they say. It may be fine with you for leaders and representative to mislead AND be unable to conceed error but possibly not others.
See this again is OPINION and not FACT. Unless of course you can provide some evidence that DEFINATELY (which means no he said/she said) proves your assertions...good luck with that.
Actually it is a fact. And of course it is incumbent on the party making the accusation about Warren to prove the accusation. In contrast, it is not incumbent on the party defending Warren to prove a negative. So put up or shut up. Let's see where Warren used a claim of Cherokee heritage to gain some advantage. This will be the third time I've asked for this in the last two days and I have yet to get a response.
There you go again...what accusation was made about Warren that would require her defending party to prove a negative? They accused her of NOT being a Cherokee as SHE said she was. It would be HER challenge to PROVE SHE IS, which is not a negative unless of course she is not then your supposition has validity. Is YOUR 'put up or shut up' challenge for me to show where SHE said SHE is a Cherokee? I took it from your positions that we had stipulated that but you're free to go back to the OP and read the MANY posts that include links to said assertion.
As to the 'Warren used a claim of Cherokee heritage to gain some advantage' first point out where I made such an assertion. This is where proving a negative COULD be relevent. My interest in this topic is not great enough to motivate me to perform the research required to substantiate this possibility. And even if found I would predict that your response would be 'xxyy is not a valid source' or 'an opinion of a former employer/associate is not a definitive fact'. NOW you could REALLY gain some credibility if you were to find such evidence of one who asserted she had/has not...
ps. NO actually it is not a fact...I stated the FACTS clearly which you did not refute.
Sorry, but Warren is obviously not making this a campaign issue -- the Republicans are. She says that she was told as a child that her family was part Cherokee. Who gives **** if it's true or not? As far as i know she was told that and she had no reason to doubt it.
So unless there IS some evidence that she made this claim in bad faith AND used it to gain some advantage, it is the mother of all non-issues and, as I suggested, nothing but a pathetic political dirty trick. So now it's three times that I've asked for such proof, and three times that there has been no proof forthcoming.
Of course not, obviously, how many guilt folks run around proclaiming their guilt? Really dude, that’s your argument?Sorry, but Warren is obviously not making this a campaign issue -- the Republicans are.
She says that she was told as a child that her family was part Cherokee. Who gives **** if it's true or not? As far as i know she was told that and she had no reason to doubt it.
So your position now is that it is a ‘white lie’ and is acceptable thusly?So unless there IS some evidence that she made this claim in bad faith…
Again, this is not my proof to yield as I have not proclaimed she gained advantage from it. Please refer to #654 where I discussed this being a 'proving a negative' challenge.So now it's three times that I've asked for such proof, and three times that there has been no proof forthcoming.
Of course not, obviously, how many guilt folks run around proclaiming their guilt? Really dude, that’s your argument?
So your position now is that it is a ‘white lie’ and is acceptable thusly?
Again, this is not my proof to yield as I have not proclaimed she gained advantage from it. Please refer to #654 where I discussed this being a 'proving a negative' challenge.
Got it -- we should just assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Dude....
There you go again...did you read the link?
Barnes said there is still no evidence, despite research conducted by her and other genealogists, to support Warren’s claim of Cherokee roots
No, I firmly believe that one is innocent until proven guilty but it appears there are some who can PROVE she is guilty. It is Warren's challenge NOW to prove her innocence. Or is your position 'I am innocent because I say so' and that should suffice?
Yes, and there's another geneologist who has said there's evidence that Warren is 1/32d Cherokee
She thought she was 1/32 Cherokee, so she thought that made her a law school faculty minority????? RIGHT!!!!!Got it -- we should just assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Dude....
My position is that it wasn't a lie at all because she thought it was true. I don't know about you, but personally I haven't fact checked everything my parents told me about my family history.
Apparently the proof doesn't exist, so don't feel bad.
She thought she was 1/32 Cherokee, so she thought that made her a law school faculty minority????? RIGHT!!!!!
:lamo:lamo:lamo
See, politically, the problem is that the whole kerfuffle just makes her look ridiculous.
Link please...
Again, post the link where SHE claimed she was a minority.
Did I mention that the CHIEF OF THE CHEROKEE NATION is 1/32 Cherokee?
Oh, did you mean this one?Check the first 50 pages of the thread.
Let me repeat...... her political problem is that this whole thing makes her look like a pander bear, and a ridiculous one at that. All the worse if it turns out she actually got hired or promoted on the basis of this nonsense, but that's not crucial. It's the atmospherics. I don't see how anybody can deny that.Again, post the link where SHE claimed she was a minority.
Did I mention that the CHIEF OF THE CHEROKEE NATION is 1/32 Cherokee?
Did I mention that the CHIEF OF THE CHEROKEE NATION is 1/32 Cherokee?
I already covered that. The chief of the Cherokee nation is documented through the proper channels and reccognized by the nation itself, Warren is not, but then again the woman's entire body of work is bull**** so what's a little affirmative action deception in the big picture.OH and btw, there you go again. The CHIEF OF THE CHEROKEE NATION is not running for the Senate...your constant use of diversion is getting tenuous.
Oh, did you mean this one?
Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago - BostonHerald.com
For which a correction was posted by the source:
For the record - Boston.com
That one? If not please correct ME…
Yes, that's the one. Note that the correction says that the article was incorrect in identifying the document; not that the document itself didn't exist. In any case, as I've said several times now, it's irrelevant whether Warren actually had Cherokee blood. The issue is whether she THOUGHT she did. The fact that her family newsletter was talking about the family's (purported) Cherokee heritage adds credibility to Warren't contention that the family thought it was true and passed it down through the generations.
Noted...does any of the above jibber jabber represent the previously requested FACT(s)? Or is your argument now that 'she THOUGHT she did' so it must be a fact?...Really? If so you apparently are still having problems differentiating between FACT and OPINION...thanks
Why don't you reread my post; it's really not that complicated.
Dickieboy THOUGHT your post was jibber jabber so you should accept it as fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?