Taxes are arguably more important and revealing of a candidate’s nature than the ethnicity of one’s great grandmother. My great-grandmother was irish. How informed do you feel now of my political philosophies?
I use a little hyperbole now and then, but I would think in order to identify yourself as a race/ethnicity, it should probably be based more upon more than some stories you heard. I mean, honestly, how strong can this connection be if at 63 years old you’re like, “Oh yeah, I never really asked about that”? Also, even according to this story, I’m supposed to believe she believed she was Native because her parents eloped due to the heritage of her mom. So? The 1/16th Cherokee heritage of her mom, which is hardly significant to anyone, except for her paternal grandparents who were apparently so super racist that they couldn’t approve of a relationship with someone who was 1/16th not white. Her family has had no affiliation with Native tribes, but this tiny bit of lineage was such a big deal that she thought of herself as Native American. Ah hmm.
Jack, I think Scott Brown needs to simmer down too, and don’t buy this “She’s claiming to be Squanto so she could get preferential treatment at Harvard!” silliness either, but I also don’t believe Elizabeth Warren has ever, at any point in her life, thought of herself as Native American, so her calling herself such in the directory was bullshit.
So, when you said:
“Documents came out for Bush’s National Guard service, so I didn’t believe him.”
You actually meant:
“Documents came out for Bush’s National Guard service, so I didn’t believe him for the two hours it took for the internet to prove the documents were obvious forgeries.”
Yeah. Clear as mud.
It’s beyond coming of as racist, he’s asked the general public to judge Warren based on her skin color. He is encouraging people to be racist.
You appear to be becoming much more selective of the points you actually answer, and the ones you pretend not to have heard. This is wise, and I commend that shrewd decision.
So, Harry Reid should not have asked Brown to show his tax records? He should have proven the claims he made without making the request of Romney to produce his tax records?
You know those ceremonies people pay good money for so they can be inducted into a made-up Italian family? Those ceremonies out in the woods where you go with a Siberian Tribal Shaman so that you can give yourself your Russian Name? All those people who think it’s oh-so-romantic to make up a Vietnamese surname for themselves?
Yeah, me either.
But there’s good money in making up fake Native American tribes and charging people scads of money to become an honorary member of the fake tribe. Plenty of hippies give themselves ridiculous Native American names.
In the US, Native Americans are ridiculously romanticized, and being able to claim Native ancestry is a sign that you’re all spiritual and One With The Earth and stuff. I think it’s gotten better over the last few decades, but in the eighties and nineties? Boy howdy, it was bad.
So, yeah, it was bullshit for her to make that claim. But it’s not an unusual form of bullshit. Plenty of people who really ought to know better make claims of being Native American based on flimsier evidence, despite having no ties to Native culture.
I absolutely believe she thought of herself as Native American. She wasn’t remotely justified to think that, but I believe she thought it.
Yes, with caveats. I would never question someone who looks one race if they claim to have some small, tiny part of another race. Unless I had prior reason to suspect that person of being deceitful, then it moves into just general dishonesty, not race specific dishonesty.
To claim racial heritage for profit like a contract requires a higher standard of evidence. Your issue, I suspect, is that you believe 1) Warren was dishonest on purpose, and 2) she did it to get ahead. Here’s my assertion: She honestly thought she has some Native American heritage. Also, she simply stated that as a matter of fact and did not use it to get ahead.
Your beliefs would require you to prove that. Mine does not, since it ultimately matters little.
mag01: Romney, not Brown. Romney’s refusal to release his tax records, flouting custom as well as flouting the need to establish his honesty to the people who he’s asking to hire him, was *already *a campaign issue. Still is, too. Romney made it one. He’s making the claim to be honest, but won’t support it. That would be true even if Reid had never said a word.
Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention. Your candidate’s name is Romney.
Harry Reid should back up his claim. I agree.
What Harry Reid hasn’t done is say look at Romney he doesn’t look Latino, why’s he claiming his parents came from Mexico, he must have done so to further his career. When he does that let me know and I’ll lump Reid in as a racist along side Brown.
“A guy at Bain called me”
So I guess if Scott Brown says, “A guy at the reservation called me.” then his accusation is valid and now the burden of proof is on Warren?
It’d sure be better than ‘look at her skin she ain’t Native American.’
Bricker has patented the "liberal hypocrisy"schtick. You owe him a nickel.
Well we made it all the way to page five before one of the usual suspects came at me with this. I respond in good faith to everyone who makes an argument with me, which is usually about a dozen to one.
It’s possible I missed something, but certainly not intentional.
Care to call out specifically who I’m avoiding or are you just going to snipe at me without any specifics?
SC: *You *made the flat assertion that what Reid said was unfounded, meaning you’re calling him either a fool or a liar. And *that *is your basis? Really now?
And apparently you too need reminding that the candidate for President is a fellow named Romney. Not Reid, Romney. Who, btw, with a single mouseclick could prove all the questioners wrong, if he wanted to - and if they *were *wrong.
Meh. I’ll come out and address this absurd tu quoque of a hijack: yes, Reid was being a jerk when he made those allegations about Romney’s taxes. Whether it’s a fair case of dirty politics or an unfair case is a matter for another thread, IMO, but it was obnoxious of him.
But even if it was terrible of him to do that, it has no bearing on whether it’s terrible for Brown to do what he’s done, and if it was great of him, it has no bearing on whether it’s great of Brown to do what he’s done. They’re different cases dealing with different dynamics, different traditions, and different contexts, and we can learn very little about one from the other.
Well, for instance, in the excellent post # 179, I point out that you are mixing up affirmative action based on gender and based on minority status, without making any distinction.
Unless I grievously misunderstand, your argument centers around her claiming minority status as an “American Indian”, and your shock and horror at such deceit. Yet, in almost the same breath, you assert that her status as a woman had some bearing. Well, why shouldn’t we believe that it was all of it, not simply a side issue?
Keeping in mind, as has been pointed out to you any number of times, that the people directly involved in the hiring decision say that her heritage had nothing to do with it. Again, I must ask, if you think they are lying, and if you do think so, where is your evidence?
Pretty sure she can prove she is female. She could rip open her blouse at a campaign rally and shout “Bite on these beauties, Scotty Brown!” Not recommending it, mind you, as it might lower the tone of the debate.
I simply assumed that this was a rhetorical question. If you actually need an answer I will provide one…
Warren is a woman. For her to benefit from being a woman, if she did, might be something that people opposed to AA would disagree with. However, no one would accuse her of dishonesty for benefiting from being a member of that class.
Warren is claiming to be a Native American but has no proof. So, for her to benefit from that is much different than simply being female. Plus, Native Americans are a tiny subset of the population, unlike half of the population that are female. People falsely claiming to be Native American hurt the actual Native Americans which is why they tend to be angry about it, as I’ve posted many examples of.
That doesn’t carry much weight since if it were true, of course they would deny it.
But the president of the school has admitted that they were preferentially hiring female minorities during that time. They just deny that she specifically was one of them. I’m sure they would similarly deny hiring any person on the faculty because of Affirmative Action and racial preferences. Much better to talk about things in the aggregate.
Debaser, again: is any of your evidence of malfeasance on her part (rather than mushyheaded romanticizing of her past) direct evidence, rather than circumstantial evidence? If so, which bit of evidence do you think rises above circumstantial?