I haven’t “mixed” ethnicity and gender, whatever that even means.
It’s really simple: Harvard has admitted to having a preference for females and minorities. Warren is female but she isn’t Native American, or at least she can’t prove she is. That is the issue and is consistently what I’ve been arguing. Try and keep up, will you?
After doing some Googling, she didn’t say it during the debate. She said it on Eagan and Broude on Monday.
There are 379 news articles on Google news on it.
IOW, no, you *cannot *point to any lie she’s told, but you’re still claiming she’s a liar. Thanks for the confirmation. :rolleyes:
Maybe you’d better not listen to Howie Carr’s show so often, 'kay? There’s a reason you’re so heavily outnumbered here, and it isn’t that “this board hates conservatives” or somesuch.
I actually think it’s vastly more likely that Harvard wanted to promote the idea that she was a “woman of color” and was so desperate to prove how “diverse” they were that they consciously or unconsciously chose not to scratch below the surface.
The “only one explanation” seems to be that she genuinely believed she was Cherokee, based on family oral histories, and she acted on that in several ways (including, as I read today, submitting a recipe to “Pow Wow Chow” in 1984, listing herself as Cherokee). Harvard hired a highly accomplished and respected attorney who had won the ABA’s Silver Gavel Award for her work on bankruptcy law, during a time they were trying to recruit women and minorities.
That’s a clear pattern. Your clear pattern is not clear at all.
That’s a great link. It outlines all of the facts, many of which haven’t been discussed in this thread yet. (I didn’t know about them.)
“High cheek bones”. Wow. This is more openly, stunningly racist than anything that Scott Brown has been cited as saying in this thread. There goes your moral high ground, Warren supporters.
So Warren’s excuse that she put herself on the directory to meet like minded Cherokee’s doesn’t make any sense at all. There goes her alibi.
I also love it when the Boston Globe gets caught blatantly rooting for a liberal candidate:
Still looking for the lie you claim makes her a liar…
What are you talking about? Are you confusing me with another poster who you were arguing about lies with upthread?
I’m not going to bother responding to you if you can’t even be bothered to quote me with that you are talking about. I’ve made many claims in this thread, and backed them all up with cites. What lie, specifically, are you speaking of?
You’ve made many insinuations, yes, but have yet to close the loop on any of them. You’ve spent more verbiage in *claiming *you’ve been clear than in *being *clear.
So what’s your conclusion? Just what character defect *do *you claim Warren suffers from, if not lying? Is it something other than “being a Democrat” or isn’t it?
You are all bark and no bite. I’m not going to dance for your amusement, especially since you clearly aren’t interested in debating in good faith.
If you’ve got a problem with any of my arguments or the facts I’ve used to support them then bring it on. Otherwise you are just white noise.
So you got nothin’ after all. Thanks for admitting it, at least.
Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are essentially rewordings of precisely the same contention. Some nuance is required to fully square those contentions with
What are we invited to believe? That Harvard was under intense pressure, but never discussed it? They were eager to recruit and hire a minority woman, but only on the QT? And having done so under cover of darkness, they reversed course and were eager to promote that fact? They didn’t want anyone to know that they were looking for someone like her to hire, but as soon as they had hired her, they were eager to brag on it? Huh?
Be like a burglar, robbing a house in perfect silence and stealth, and then accosting passersby on the street with “Hey! Wanna see what I just stole?”
And this stuff about tenure leaves the hungry mind wanting. Did she announce this blockbuster news immediately upon receiving tenure (or, as academics call it, “going to Heaven without having to die”)? Soon as she got over that magic line, it was pop goes the weasel? A timeline might be helpful, if you want to connect two disparate facts.
Do you think that tenure protected her from the storm of calumny sure to befall her when her shattering truths became public? Did she live in fear up until that moment? Have you any evidence of any kind whatsoever that this was the case? When she offered this stunning admission, were there howls of shock and horror from Harvard, or anyone else for that matter? Do you imagine that tenure would protect a professor from discipline or dismissal if the statements supporting her hiring were fraudulent? Tenure is a pretty big deal for academics, true, but it is not the equivalent of absolution.
Maybe she just changed her mind? Decided she wasn’t that interested in that part of her heritage. Perhaps she regarded the whole thing as such a trivial matter, she didn’t give it a thought. (When I found out I was likely more Scots than Irish, I didn’t stop drinking. And I don’t hate “Amazing Grace” played on the bagpipes one bit less.)
And lastly, just for the sake of morbid curiosity, you identify the Times as “liberal”. On that spectrum of political orientation, where might you put the Daily Caller or the Examiner, which you have quoted extensively? Just to the right of Otto von Bismarck?
It’s neither stunning nor racist, but I don’t think that will have any effect on this discussion.
You keep saying that. It’s like Dopers are clothing stores that play the radio over the PA system, and you’re the investigator from BMI making sure the stores are paying their royalties.
Is Bricker paying you a commission?
I didn’t peruse the original claim by Senator Reid. That said, it was not my understanding that when he made the allegation he specified about which ten-year period he was spreading the rumor. Although the notion of it being 1947-1957 is just stupid.
Please advise if he did so specify.
Seriously. It’s clueless, and it goes some distance to support the idea that Warren is (or at least was) clueless about Native Americans and NA issues. There’s no goddam way I’d vote for her as tribal council member.
If, however, I were voting for MA Senator, she’d get my vote in a heartbeat. The “high cheekbone” think is not remotely racist in any reasonable sense of the word.
Agreed. It sounds more like someone grasping for straws to prove they’re part Native American than evidence of malice.
I’m sure it’s obvious to all that I take a dim view towards pretendians, but they’re not all the same. She certainly doesn’t come across as being a more moderate version of Ward Churchill.
You asked a dozen questions in that post, most of which I will ignore as rhetorical ones that would be a waste of time for me to answer point by point. My response to your onslaught of questions is to restate my position that Harvard and any institution hiring with preferences is always put into a tough position. They say they are giving preference to certain groups, but can’t actually admit any specific person was allowed in who wan’t the best candidate. The result is the sort of doublespeak and actions we see from Harvard in this case. The president of Harvard admits they preferentially hired, but denies they lowered standards. They claim they didn’t know Warren was a Native American, but bragged about having hired a Native American.
Of course, Warren and Harvard could answer all of these questions if they released her personnel file as Brown has asked.
A timeline has already been cited. If you are going to start challenging on things that have already been asked and answered I won’t do your homework for you.
Yes, of course the times is Liberal. I didn’t think people even disputed that anymore. The Daily Caller and Examiner stories I posted had facts which are in multiple stories on Google News. Once again, if you dispute anything in particular we can discuss it. But at this point it looks like you are just attacking any cites that aren’t from Liberal sources and I’m not going to cherry pick my cites to only left wing ones just to make you happy.
The major part of which can be attributed to the very unusual situation of the Cherokee. The best visual example is posted above, the Principal Chief of the Cherokee is one-thirty second Cherokee by blood, and looks like he just stepped out of a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce.
The blood of the Cherokee is thoroughly mingled into the blood of America. As it should be, as we might best hope for all, the Irish, the Mexican, the German…but not the Dutch, of course.
We must remain vigilant.
Plenty of people in this thread were calling Brown racist for looking at Warren in the debate and declaring she “clearly is not” a Native American.
If that’s the standard then I’m sure that all those posters will be now calling Warren a racist for her cheekbones comment since it’s clearly worse.
I’ll be holding my breath!
All of which blows away on the wind like a butterfly’s fart if Elizabeth Warren was, in fact, the most qualified candidate. In that case, her being a woman and all would simply be a bowl of very refined gravy for the Harvard dons. Would they exploit that happy coincidence? No, of course not, not the done thing, but if one of their staff includes it in a press release that reflects well on Harvard…
Those are not “questions”. They are insinuations.
I’m sure you are a very busy person, so a post number or a quote will do nicely. Doesn’t take any longer to do it than to tell me you won’t.
Not perzackly. You offered your use of the Times as a testament to your non-partisan innocence, that you are free from bias. But the true bulk of your citation comes from Daily Caller, a relatively minor spout for right-wing glurge.
Nothing wrong with being partisan, hell, I’m partisan as all get out, not about to pretend otherwise. But if I draw my cite from a distinctly lefty well, I do my reader the respect of mentioning it, albeit humorously. You offer the Daily Caller with the same sober sincerity I might offer the CS Monitor. It’s possible, bless your heart, that you just don’t know any better, well, then, I’m here to help.