First you say its sarcasm as if to immunize yourself from my response and insinuate that you wooshed me or something, and now you say its fact?
Make up your mind, which is it? You can’t have it both ways. Was your post serious and factual or were you making a joke?
So in your view, when someone is accused of something, the burden is on the accused to prove that the accusation is wrong? What is expected of the accuser beyond simply making an accusation then? Doesn’t this just encourage baseless accusations going forward if nothing is expected from the accuser aside from simply voicing the accusation?
Is this how your ideal justice system would work as well? Accusation = guilty unless proven innocent?
On what basis do you say that? All of his filibuster cloture votes? His support of ACA? The fact that he refuses even to use the word “Republican” in any of his ads or speeches?
His first vote would be to put McConnell in charge of the Senate. That’s all you need to know.
On the contrary, she DID know that she didn’t need proof to make such a claim: that list didn’t ask for any proof, and so she correctly concluded that it wasn’t a highly rigorous list, the kind of list like tribal membership rolls that requires, y’know, proof.
Since it didn’t require proof, she correctly concluded that people who, like her, had family stories about their ancestry were allowed to put themselves on the list. And that’s what she did.
Why is it her responsibility to require some level of proof that the list creators didn’t require for themselves?
Are you seriously suggesting that he hasn’t been a bipartisan senator? He’s pro-choice. He’s voted against his party many times. I’ll get cites if I need to, but I don’t think it’s actually disputed by anyone that he’s been an independent voter and doesn’t follow the Republican party line on every vote.
I don’t know. My evidence that it’s easy to add yourself to it without having proof is that Warren added herself to it without having proof.
If you go add yourself to it, it would almost certainly be a lie, even though Warren wasn’t lying, in the same way that my friend Jessica* could put herself on a list of genuine psychics without lying, but I couldn’t. The difference is that Jessica believes herself a psychic, based on flimsy evidence, whereas I don’t.
Well then, that’s the problem; you don’t know what the word means. Someone can be misinformed, and repeat the misinformation, and not be guilty of lying. And that is not just IMHO.
He’s always voted at his party’s call, as G&S put it. On occasion, when it hasn’t affected the result, he’s been allowed to vote for his political future instead - that’s a common theme among re-election-threatened pols.
When has he gone against his party on any issue of signficance when it would have mattered? When? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
You can’t. If you can’t prove descent from someone listed on the Dawes Rolls, then none of the listed tribes will legally acknowledge you as a member. No changes, no exceptions. The rolls were closed in 1907, btw.
Problem is, the Dawes Rolls never came close to including all of any of those tribes blood members, for a variety of practical reasons, as well as the reason that many Indians who were able to “pass for white” did so to avoid all the racist crap that came with being Indians. Many whites (and blacks too) today have Indian blood and don’t even know it. And even if DNA testing proved it, too bad, the Dawes Rolls are closed.
“The New England Historic Genealogical Society provided initial research that shows several members of Warren’s maternal family claiming Cherokee heritage. Warren’s great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith, is said to be described as Cherokee in an 1894 marriage license application. The genealogical society gathered that information through a 2006 family newsletter and said the original application cannot be located.”
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/25/elizabeth-warren-is-she-or-isnt-she-native-american/
While the original marriage license application from 1894 no longer exists for the purposes of verification, it seems clear that Warren’s family has long held that they are of Cherokee descent, so there is no reason whatsoever to accuse Elizabeth Warren lying about it. Although I guess if President Obama could go back in time to 1961 and insert birth announcements in two local newspapers, Warren could have gone back in time to 2006 and planted that story in her family’s newsletter. :rolleyes:
That crack, “as you can see, she’s not [a person of color]” is so racist it makes me want to puke. I can’t believe we’re still going there in 2012. That, coupled with his staff making racist Native American gestures and chants, damn well ought to cost him the election.
Let’s do this. For you and Debaser and all others who want to bring up race, here’s something you can do:
Elizabeth Warren says she’s part Native American. Your next move should be to believe it. Then drop it, never bring it up again. Unless evidence comes out that she knew she wasn’t and lied about it, ignore the whole issue of race. And even if evidence comes out that she’s not, if it also doesn’t prove she knowingly lied about it, ignore it. As far as I’m concerned, she’s part Native American. That’s the end of the story for me as it should be for you too.
No, actually, you didn’t. I check stuff, you should probably know that. What you did was offer a series of direct quotes. The people themselves, in that instance, are the “cites”, it is they who are speaking. As to whether or not CNN or the Times are “liberal sources” is a question I’ll just set aside lightly, for now, rather than embarrass you needlessly, seeing as the question is moot in this instance of direct quote.
(Keep in mind, those quotes come from members of other American Indian tribes. As you might well imagine, many other Native Americans are jealous and envious of the Cherokee for their astonishing good looks and sharp intelligence.)
The quotes from the Caller are the Caller speaking as itself, they are the source, they are the cite, and the Caller is notoriously full of shit. You are, of course, free to call anything you like a “cite”, just like anyone might claim that Jack Chick is a theologian.
:rolleyes: It’s a FACT that I was employing sarcasm.
:rolleyes: Read slowly: Warren claimed to be of Native American ancestry. Brown challenges that claim, as he has every right to do. Therefore, the burden of proof is Warren’s to SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT SHE MADE.
According to Wikipedia, Scott Brown is a Christian. Presumably he claims that Jesus rose from the dead. If he refuses to substantiate that claim, is he a liar?
Or is it a claim he’s making in a completely different arena with a completely different acceptable level of proof, a claim that has nothing to do with the current political campaign, and would it be obnoxious and inappropriate for folks to call him a liar for a claim he made in that other arena with that other standard of proof?
It’s only Warren’s burden to substantiate the claim to the extent that she considers her claim to be relevant to–well, anything. She doesn’t appear to consider her claim of 20+ years ago to be relevant today, so it’s not her burden.
Brown, on the other hand, seems to consider his calling her a liar to be a relevant claim to this political campaign. As such, it’s up to him to back up his claim.
