- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Of course not. Or any number of historical figures.
But it can be an advantage in trying to enter Harvard as a minority student through affirmative action.
I did, still don't see it. Here's a rough transcript I did. Help me out...
That's not the post I was responding to.I did, still don't see it. Here's a rough transcript I did. Help me out...
Of course not. Or any number of historical figures.
But it can be an advantage in trying to enter Harvard as a minority student through affirmative action.
Are you unable to check out the history yourself? Perhaps you should have done so before offering your fact-free opinion.A link to something that might familiarize me with the facts of the matter wouldn't hurt. But I've got to warn you ahead of time, if it's Breitbart, WorldNut or Conservapedia I can tell you right now you can save your time.
If that's true, where the hell did the Native American thing even start?
None of that addresses the point. She claimed to be a member of a minority group but later removed herself from that same minority group. It is lying that is the issue here, not affirmative action.I just have to say it's hilarious that right wingers have this big problem of blacks or women getting any special treatment, but not if some rich, born with a silver spoon kid gets admitted to the Ivy League with mediocre grades as a legacy admission. She proved herself in her profession at some of the county's finest law schools, and they don't give out full professorships at Harvard. Doesn't appear she needed any special help to get where she is.
Are you unable to check out the history yourself? Perhaps you should have done so before offering your fact-free opinion.
None of that addresses the point. She claimed to be a member of a minority group but later removed herself from that same minority group. It is lying that is the issue here, not affirmative action.
The story in my family is my mom's grandfather was an illegitimate child of an adulterous affair between a Cherokee Indian that the mother had an affair with while husband was off on a year long drunk bender in another state. Told that story 100 times as the reason her side has some members in it with native American features - black hair, dark eyes, dark skin. Have no idea if it's true....
Are you unable to check out the history yourself? Perhaps you should have done so before offering your fact-free opinion.
According to Warren and her brothers, they grew up "listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage".[61][62][63][64] The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62][65] but a spokesperson from the Oklahoma Historical Society said "finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult, not only because of intermarriage, but also because some Native Americans opted not to be put on federal rolls, while others who were not Native American did put their names on rolls to get access to land."[66
You are obviously completely unfamiliar with the history and it shows, and in fact you were the first to make that ridiculous claim. It's up to you to prove it.For ****s sake grant. Back up the **** you say for a change rather than front garbage and expecting everyone else to run around looking for it. You said it. Prove it. It's very basic standard debating skills.
Its amazing someone who went to a third rate law school got a harvard law professorship. Harvard is so "exclusive" that normally unless you have a JD from harvard, Yale or Stanford, you aren't getting a job there even if you were top of your class at say NYU or Cornell or Penn. (all top drawer world class law schools) She went to a school not in the top 50
It was a lie, that's all. Whether lies are 'serious' or not depends a lot on what we expect from our politicians.OK, a very serious "lie" which was repeating family lore. Why should anyone care about that?
I assume by 'amazing' you mean impressive, and not 'obviously succeeded because of affirmative action.' Her record is one of decades of success in her profession. Like her or not, she's an accomplished woman.
I said that regarding Anita Hill.Well in spite of your unwarranted pissy answer, I did research it and found pretty much what I expected to find, which is that some people say she is, records are incomplete, and we'll never know. Warren grew up being told she was part Cherokee. Shrug.
If it's 'iffy', don't make the claim.It's pretty much the same sort of uncertainty a lot of us have when told such and such is part of our bloodline, but records are iffy.
If you say so.Certainly it's the scandal of the millenium.
wow... and right wing women are attacking her for saying that. Amazing.
not at all. looked like an affirmative action hire to me
not at all. looked like an affirmative action hire to me
[#7]The University of Pennsylvania Law School. 1990-1995: William A Schnader Professor of Commercial Law; 1987-1990: Professor of Law
[#15]The University of Texas School of Law. 1986-87: Jay H. Brown Centennial Fellow in Law; 1983-1987: Professor of Law. 1985-86: Conoco Faculty Fellow in Law; 1981-82: Visiting Associate Professor of Law
The University of Texas at Austin. 1983-87: Research Associate, Population Research Center
The University of Houston Law Center. 1981-83: Associate Professor of Law; 1978-80: Assistant Professor of Law; 1980-81: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
[#10] The University of Michigan. 1985: Visiting Professor of Law
Rutgers School of Law (Newark). 1977-78: Lecturer in Law
Her 2nd husband was/is a law professor at Harvard.
Got the job because of her husband, affirmative action, or a little of both? Possibly.
I do think, however, that she has paid her dues as a teacher. Her choice of schools had to do with her husband being employed in Houston. She has taught in various schools until working her way into a Harvard professorship. Starting as a part timer.
Still, I can't get past the little lie told on the campaign trail concerning her heritage. Then floating another unsubstantiated claim seems suspicious.
Basically, shut up or back it up.
It was a lie, that's all. Whether lies are 'serious' or not depends a lot on what we expect from our politicians.
Or got job based on her record at two outstanding law schools, and productive scholarship all along the way. Possibly....
I do agree with that!
Yes, she answered a direct question - have you been treated differently because you're a woman - "Yes." Suspicious! :lamo
As to her job, that was my point. She has earned her position no matter how she got it.
Her last claim, the harassment, is an unsubstantiated claim, and, IMO, if you make claims, particulary harassment claims, you should be prepared to back them up. She is unwilling to do that.
Question: Have you had any similar experiences, of being treated differently because you're a woman by your colleagues in the Senate?
Warren: Yes.
Q: Can you elaborate?
W: Nope?
Q: I'm not asking you to name names...
W: I've said all I'm going to say.
Q: Surprising to you?
W: I wish it was, but it's hard to change these big, male dominated institutions. What I am very happy about is there are now enough women in the U.S. Senate to begin to change that place, and I just think that's powerfully important.
Q: But if a US Senator is treated differently than her colleagues?
W:...if you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu... So it's important that we have women in the United States Senate, strong women, and women who are there to help advance an agenda important to women...
It's pretty funny no one actually quotes Warren's claims.... What part of "this" do you have a hard time believing happened?
What's also hilarious is right wingers coming to the defense of Senators that in any other context they'd condemn without giving it a second thought as a group of mostly corrupt, spoiled, arrogant a&&holes. It's the funniest thread I've read in some time.
What part of "this"? Gee, well maybe you could try and be a little more specific. Or make any sense whatsoever.
Let me clear it up for you, if you weren't able to get it from my post. Anything that comes out her mouth, that's what I don't believe. And that's a bit of a stretch to say I am defending someone because Elizabeth Warren is a lying sac'o crap. I'm not defending any of the other filth that runs the Senate, make no mistake about that.
She will stop at nothing. She will say anything to further her cause. Who knows if any of this ever really happened to this freshman senator?
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?