Elizabeth Warren? Seriously?

[Statistikhengst]

PLEASE!!!!!! Warren please run...I want you to run. It's so fun to watch the Dems dig themselves into a hole they cannot get out of.

Sort of like Obama did in 2008?

No, in 2008 he dug a hole the country can't get out of.

And rubes like you gave him the shovel.

We'll post funny pitchers and call them names. It worked b'fore!

I did? I voted for Obama? Wow, I must have been drinking heavily. I don't remember that.

The idiocy of people like you got Obama elected. You thought making up funny names for him and calling him a Kenyan and posting funny pictures would do the trick.

The GOP has been so overrun with retards like you that old school Republicans like me have decided to stay home until assholes like you are kicked to the curb and taken to the dump.

Bravo.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

This psychotic bitch and asshole biden need to run.

Ahhhh, another Rightie keepin it classy. Excellent.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Pogo]

Conservatives cannot face the economic issues that Warren brings to the table

Best they have is Indian taunts

Man, you people are so stupid. No wonder why our country is in the shape it's in today. Thanks dumbasses, for continuing to vote in liars and losers based upon nothing more than your partisanship.

​

I know whatcha mean, I hate when assertions are backed up by nothing, don't you?

This is the backup irony meter. The first one blew up at the word "liars".

The point is, nobody who is supposedly "intelligent" would have gone about trying to seek special recognition (which is exactly what she was trying to do . . . obviously) as a native American when:

1) These are tall tales told by an old family member. Lol. Anyone who was serious would have done some background work first. You don't just claim special status because of a family tale.

Nobody "claimed special status" except your strawman. And we did this source thing last night, to which you had no answer, so I guess we're just doomed to do it over and over until it sinks in -- when your grammy told you family stories, did you immediately pop up, jump in the car and drive to the National Archives to find documentation?

I didn't either. Doesn't make either one of us "liars'.

[2) She appears to be Caucasian. You cannot tell me that she suffered any kind of discrimination because she is a "native American." THAT is the purpose for things like that, not to be abused and taken advantage of by people such as Elizabeth Warren.

Again, your strawman. Nobody claimed to have "suffered discrimination" in the first place; you made it up and then went "oh, look what I found". Your logic runs like a 1978 Yugo. More to the point, it's blatantly dishonest.

[3) The woman may have been taken seriously if she hadn't been dishonest . . . or ridiculous, whichever one it may be.

Actually your posts might have been taken seriously if you hadn't gone this route.
Now you're stuck with it.

[Unless of course you want to continue to believe that she claimed a special minority status because she wanted to be invited to parties???

Actually the phrase "she appears to be Caucasian" is gold enough. That might be my next sigline...

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

 

[ChrisL]

Man, you people are so stupid. No wonder why our country is in the shape it's in today. Thanks dumbasses, for continuing to vote in liars and losers based upon nothing more than your partisanship.

​

I know whatcha mean, I hate when assertions are backed up by nothing, don't you?

This is the backup irony meter. The first one blew up at the word "liars".

The point is, nobody who is supposedly "intelligent" would have gone about trying to seek special recognition (which is exactly what she was trying to do . . . obviously) as a native American when:

1) These are tall tales told by an old family member. Lol. Anyone who was serious would have done some background work first. You don't just claim special status because of a family tale.

Nobody "claimed special status" except your strawman. And we did this source thing last night, to which you had no answer, so I guess we're just doomed to do it over and over until it sinks in -- when your grammy told you family stories, did you immediately pop up, jump in the car and drive to the National Archives to find documentation?

I didn't either. Doesn't make either one of us "liars'.

[2) She appears to be Caucasian. You cannot tell me that she suffered any kind of discrimination because she is a "native American." THAT is the purpose for things like that, not to be abused and taken advantage of by people such as Elizabeth Warren.

Again, your strawman. Nobody claimed to have "suffered discrimination" in the first place; you made it up and then went "oh, look what I found". Your logic runs like a 1978 Yugo. More to the point, it's blatantly dishonest.

[3) The woman may have been taken seriously if she hadn't been dishonest . . . or ridiculous, whichever one it may be.

Actually your posts might have been taken seriously if you hadn't gone this route.
Now you're stuck with it.

[Unless of course you want to continue to believe that she claimed a special minority status because she wanted to be invited to parties???

Actually the phrase "she appears to be Caucasian" is gold enough. That might be my next sigline...

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Duh, why else do you think she would fill out her forms stating that she was a native American? For the parties?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Sort of like Obama did in 2008?

No, in 2008 he dug a hole the country can't get out of.

And rubes like you gave him the shovel.

We'll post funny pitchers and call them names. It worked b'fore!

I did? I voted for Obama? Wow, I must have been drinking heavily. I don't remember that.

The idiocy of people like you got Obama elected. You thought making up funny names for him and calling him a Kenyan and posting funny pictures would do the trick.

The GOP has been so overrun with retards like you that old school Republicans like me have decided to stay home until assholes like you are kicked to the curb and taken to the dump.

LOL, so you're not a Republican but you say you are, and I'm not a Republican but you say I am too. What about Obama, is he a Republican? Is everyone a Republican?

No. A couple of smart people are Republicans. The other 98% of smart people are Democrats.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[ChrisL]

Man, you people are so stupid. No wonder why our country is in the shape it's in today. Thanks dumbasses, for continuing to vote in liars and losers based upon nothing more than your partisanship.

​

I know whatcha mean, I hate when assertions are backed up by nothing, don't you?

This is the backup irony meter. The first one blew up at the word "liars".

The point is, nobody who is supposedly "intelligent" would have gone about trying to seek special recognition (which is exactly what she was trying to do . . . obviously) as a native American when:

1) These are tall tales told by an old family member. Lol. Anyone who was serious would have done some background work first. You don't just claim special status because of a family tale.

Nobody "claimed special status" except your strawman. And we did this source thing last night, to which you had no answer, so I guess we're just doomed to do it over and over until it sinks in -- when your grammy told you family stories, did you immediately pop up, jump in the car and drive to the National Archives to find documentation?

I didn't either. Doesn't make either one of us "liars'.

[2) She appears to be Caucasian. You cannot tell me that she suffered any kind of discrimination because she is a "native American." THAT is the purpose for things like that, not to be abused and taken advantage of by people such as Elizabeth Warren.

Again, your strawman. Nobody claimed to have "suffered discrimination" in the first place; you made it up and then went "oh, look what I found". Your logic runs like a 1978 Yugo. More to the point, it's blatantly dishonest.

[3) The woman may have been taken seriously if she hadn't been dishonest . . . or ridiculous, whichever one it may be.

Actually your posts might have been taken seriously if you hadn't gone this route.
Now you're stuck with it.

[Unless of course you want to continue to believe that she claimed a special minority status because she wanted to be invited to parties???

Actually the phrase "she appears to be Caucasian" is gold enough. That might be my next sigline...

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

Warren initially denies knowing why Harvard touted her as Native American
The controversy was sparked in late April 2012, when the Boston Herald revealed[1] that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, based on a report in The Harvard Crimson in 1996[2]:

“Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.”

The Harvard Crimson reported similar information in 1998[3]:

Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.

Prior to the Herald report, the public was unaware that Warren claimed to be Cherokee. In none of the public interviews[4] or testimony she gave prior to that point had Warren revealed that she was Native American.

In the introductory campaign video explaining “Who I Am,”[5]Warren did not mention being Native American.

When confronted by reporters, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard[6] was promoting her as Native American, and said that she only learned of it by reading the newspaper reports.[7]

- See more at: Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

 

[Pogo]

​

I know whatcha mean, I hate when assertions are backed up by nothing, don't you?

This is the backup irony meter. The first one blew up at the word "liars".

The point is, nobody who is supposedly "intelligent" would have gone about trying to seek special recognition (which is exactly what she was trying to do . . . obviously) as a native American when:

1) These are tall tales told by an old family member. Lol. Anyone who was serious would have done some background work first. You don't just claim special status because of a family tale.

Nobody "claimed special status" except your strawman. And we did this source thing last night, to which you had no answer, so I guess we're just doomed to do it over and over until it sinks in -- when your grammy told you family stories, did you immediately pop up, jump in the car and drive to the National Archives to find documentation?

I didn't either. Doesn't make either one of us "liars'.

[2) She appears to be Caucasian. You cannot tell me that she suffered any kind of discrimination because she is a "native American." THAT is the purpose for things like that, not to be abused and taken advantage of by people such as Elizabeth Warren.

Again, your strawman. Nobody claimed to have "suffered discrimination" in the first place; you made it up and then went "oh, look what I found". Your logic runs like a 1978 Yugo. More to the point, it's blatantly dishonest.

[3) The woman may have been taken seriously if she hadn't been dishonest . . . or ridiculous, whichever one it may be.

Actually your posts might have been taken seriously if you hadn't gone this route.
Now you're stuck with it.

[Unless of course you want to continue to believe that she claimed a special minority status because she wanted to be invited to parties???

Actually the phrase "she appears to be Caucasian" is gold enough. That might be my next sigline...

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Duh, why else do you think she would fill out her forms stating that she was a native American? For the parties?

Sorry but "why else but my theory" is not an argument. That's called "speculation". When you make a claim, it's your job to back it up, and you can't do it.

What "forms" are you referring to anyway?

 

[ChrisL]

The point is, nobody who is supposedly "intelligent" would have gone about trying to seek special recognition (which is exactly what she was trying to do . . . obviously) as a native American when:

1) These are tall tales told by an old family member. Lol. Anyone who was serious would have done some background work first. You don't just claim special status because of a family tale.

Nobody "claimed special status" except your strawman. And we did this source thing last night, to which you had no answer, so I guess we're just doomed to do it over and over until it sinks in -- when your grammy told you family stories, did you immediately pop up, jump in the car and drive to the National Archives to find documentation?

I didn't either. Doesn't make either one of us "liars'.

[2) She appears to be Caucasian. You cannot tell me that she suffered any kind of discrimination because she is a "native American." THAT is the purpose for things like that, not to be abused and taken advantage of by people such as Elizabeth Warren.

Again, your strawman. Nobody claimed to have "suffered discrimination" in the first place; you made it up and then went "oh, look what I found". Your logic runs like a 1978 Yugo. More to the point, it's blatantly dishonest.

[3) The woman may have been taken seriously if she hadn't been dishonest . . . or ridiculous, whichever one it may be.

Actually your posts might have been taken seriously if you hadn't gone this route.
Now you're stuck with it.

[Unless of course you want to continue to believe that she claimed a special minority status because she wanted to be invited to parties???

Actually the phrase "she appears to be Caucasian" is gold enough. That might be my next sigline...

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Duh, why else do you think she would fill out her forms stating that she was a native American? For the parties?

Sorry but "why else but my theory" is not an argument. That's called "speculation". When you make a claim, it's your job to back it up, and you can't do it.

What "forms" are you referring to anyway?

The forms she filled out for Harvard where she stated that she was a native American. Why don't you read the link. All of the answers to your question are there. Oh, wait, it's because you'd rather remain in denial that the woman is at the very least, a retard.

 

[Pogo]

​

I know whatcha mean, I hate when assertions are backed up by nothing, don't you?

This is the backup irony meter. The first one blew up at the word "liars".

The point is, nobody who is supposedly "intelligent" would have gone about trying to seek special recognition (which is exactly what she was trying to do . . . obviously) as a native American when:

1) These are tall tales told by an old family member. Lol. Anyone who was serious would have done some background work first. You don't just claim special status because of a family tale.

Nobody "claimed special status" except your strawman. And we did this source thing last night, to which you had no answer, so I guess we're just doomed to do it over and over until it sinks in -- when your grammy told you family stories, did you immediately pop up, jump in the car and drive to the National Archives to find documentation?

I didn't either. Doesn't make either one of us "liars'.

[2) She appears to be Caucasian. You cannot tell me that she suffered any kind of discrimination because she is a "native American." THAT is the purpose for things like that, not to be abused and taken advantage of by people such as Elizabeth Warren.

Again, your strawman. Nobody claimed to have "suffered discrimination" in the first place; you made it up and then went "oh, look what I found". Your logic runs like a 1978 Yugo. More to the point, it's blatantly dishonest.

[3) The woman may have been taken seriously if she hadn't been dishonest . . . or ridiculous, whichever one it may be.

Actually your posts might have been taken seriously if you hadn't gone this route.
Now you're stuck with it.

[Unless of course you want to continue to believe that she claimed a special minority status because she wanted to be invited to parties???

Actually the phrase "she appears to be Caucasian" is gold enough. That might be my next sigline...

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

Warren initially denies knowing why Harvard touted her as Native American
The controversy was sparked in late April 2012, when the Boston Herald revealed[1] that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, based on a report in The Harvard Crimson in 1996[2]:

“Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.”

The Harvard Crimson reported similar information in 1998[3]:

Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.

Prior to the Herald report, the public was unaware that Warren claimed to be Cherokee. In none of the public interviews[4] or testimony she gave prior to that point had Warren revealed that she was Native American.

In the introductory campaign video explaining “Who I Am,”[5]Warren did not mention being Native American.

When confronted by reporters, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard[6] was promoting her as Native American, and said that she only learned of it by reading the newspaper reports.[7]

- See more at: Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

And now you're posting about what Harvard Law School did (after she was already hired)...

... even though your own post contradicts what you've been floating (in bold).

Are you completely ignorant of how rhetorical argument works?

 

[Pogo]

Nobody "claimed special status" except your strawman. And we did this source thing last night, to which you had no answer, so I guess we're just doomed to do it over and over until it sinks in -- when your grammy told you family stories, did you immediately pop up, jump in the car and drive to the National Archives to find documentation?

I didn't either. Doesn't make either one of us "liars'.

Again, your strawman. Nobody claimed to have "suffered discrimination" in the first place; you made it up and then went "oh, look what I found". Your logic runs like a 1978 Yugo. More to the point, it's blatantly dishonest.

Actually your posts might have been taken seriously if you hadn't gone this route.
Now you're stuck with it.

Actually the phrase "she appears to be Caucasian" is gold enough. That might be my next sigline...

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Duh, why else do you think she would fill out her forms stating that she was a native American? For the parties?

Sorry but "why else but my theory" is not an argument. That's called "speculation". When you make a claim, it's your job to back it up, and you can't do it.

What "forms" are you referring to anyway?

The forms she filled out for Harvard where she stated that she was a native American. Why don't you read the link. All of the answers to your question are there. Oh, wait, it's because you'd rather remain in denial that the woman is at the very least, a retard.

There's no such thing. Your own last post said just that.

 

[ChrisL]

The point is, nobody who is supposedly "intelligent" would have gone about trying to seek special recognition (which is exactly what she was trying to do . . . obviously) as a native American when:

1) These are tall tales told by an old family member. Lol. Anyone who was serious would have done some background work first. You don't just claim special status because of a family tale.

Nobody "claimed special status" except your strawman. And we did this source thing last night, to which you had no answer, so I guess we're just doomed to do it over and over until it sinks in -- when your grammy told you family stories, did you immediately pop up, jump in the car and drive to the National Archives to find documentation?

I didn't either. Doesn't make either one of us "liars'.

[2) She appears to be Caucasian. You cannot tell me that she suffered any kind of discrimination because she is a "native American." THAT is the purpose for things like that, not to be abused and taken advantage of by people such as Elizabeth Warren.

Again, your strawman. Nobody claimed to have "suffered discrimination" in the first place; you made it up and then went "oh, look what I found". Your logic runs like a 1978 Yugo. More to the point, it's blatantly dishonest.

[3) The woman may have been taken seriously if she hadn't been dishonest . . . or ridiculous, whichever one it may be.

Actually your posts might have been taken seriously if you hadn't gone this route.
Now you're stuck with it.

[Unless of course you want to continue to believe that she claimed a special minority status because she wanted to be invited to parties???

Actually the phrase "she appears to be Caucasian" is gold enough. That might be my next sigline...

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

Warren initially denies knowing why Harvard touted her as Native American
The controversy was sparked in late April 2012, when the Boston Herald revealed[1] that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, based on a report in The Harvard Crimson in 1996[2]:

“Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.”

The Harvard Crimson reported similar information in 1998[3]:

Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.

Prior to the Herald report, the public was unaware that Warren claimed to be Cherokee. In none of the public interviews[4] or testimony she gave prior to that point had Warren revealed that she was Native American.

In the introductory campaign video explaining “Who I Am,”[5]Warren did not mention being Native American.

When confronted by reporters, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard[6] was promoting her as Native American, and said that she only learned of it by reading the newspaper reports.[7]

- See more at: Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

And now you're posting about what Harvard Law School did (after she was already hired)...

... even though your own post contradicts what you've been flmoating (in bold).

Are you completely ignorant of how rhetorical argument works?

Oh, so now you're going to blame Harvard. She filled out her paperwork and stated that she was a native American. When confronted with that fact, she denied it at first, acting like she didn't know what they were talking about. Then, when she was confronted by the fact that it was HER who filled out her paperwork to reflect native American status, she was like . . . . "oh yeah, the parties. . . . " ROFL.

 

[ChrisL]

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Duh, why else do you think she would fill out her forms stating that she was a native American? For the parties?

Sorry but "why else but my theory" is not an argument. That's called "speculation". When you make a claim, it's your job to back it up, and you can't do it.

What "forms" are you referring to anyway?

The forms she filled out for Harvard where she stated that she was a native American. Why don't you read the link. All of the answers to your question are there. Oh, wait, it's because you'd rather remain in denial that the woman is at the very least, a retard.

There's no such thing. Your own last post said just that.

Yes there are. Read the link. It's no wonder you are having such a difficult time with this simple fact of acknowledging that she is either a liar or a retard because you keep banging your head like that. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Duh, why else do you think she would fill out her forms stating that she was a native American? For the parties?

Sorry but "why else but my theory" is not an argument. That's called "speculation". When you make a claim, it's your job to back it up, and you can't do it.

What "forms" are you referring to anyway?

The forms she filled out for Harvard where she stated that she was a native American. Why don't you read the link. All of the answers to your question are there. Oh, wait, it's because you'd rather remain in denial that the woman is at the very least, a retard.

There's no such thing. Your own last post said just that.

Oh, and she admitted that she filled out the forms to reflect that she was a native American. So there you go. SHE said so. Lol.

 

[kaz]

Sort of like Obama did in 2008?

No, in 2008 he dug a hole the country can't get out of.

And rubes like you gave him the shovel.

We'll post funny pitchers and call them names. It worked b'fore!

I did? I voted for Obama? Wow, I must have been drinking heavily. I don't remember that.

The idiocy of people like you got Obama elected. You thought making up funny names for him and calling him a Kenyan and posting funny pictures would do the trick.

The GOP has been so overrun with retards like you that old school Republicans like me have decided to stay home until assholes like you are kicked to the curb and taken to the dump.

Bravo.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Yes, it was well played. I am not a Republican and I don't call Obama Kenyan or post"funny pictures" of him, but other than that it was good. Though that was actually all he said. Yes, g5000 is an idiot. He's a master at kicking ass for the voices in his head.

 

[kaz]

No, in 2008 he dug a hole the country can't get out of.

And rubes like you gave him the shovel.

We'll post funny pitchers and call them names. It worked b'fore!

I did? I voted for Obama? Wow, I must have been drinking heavily. I don't remember that.

The idiocy of people like you got Obama elected. You thought making up funny names for him and calling him a Kenyan and posting funny pictures would do the trick.

The GOP has been so overrun with retards like you that old school Republicans like me have decided to stay home until assholes like you are kicked to the curb and taken to the dump.

LOL, so you're not a Republican but you say you are, and I'm not a Republican but you say I am too. What about Obama, is he a Republican? Is everyone a Republican?

No. A couple of smart people are Republicans. The other 98% of smart people are Democrats.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Go ahead and tell yourself that, Captain Moonbeam.

 

[Pogo]

Nobody "claimed special status" except your strawman. And we did this source thing last night, to which you had no answer, so I guess we're just doomed to do it over and over until it sinks in -- when your grammy told you family stories, did you immediately pop up, jump in the car and drive to the National Archives to find documentation?

I didn't either. Doesn't make either one of us "liars'.

Again, your strawman. Nobody claimed to have "suffered discrimination" in the first place; you made it up and then went "oh, look what I found". Your logic runs like a 1978 Yugo. More to the point, it's blatantly dishonest.

Actually your posts might have been taken seriously if you hadn't gone this route.
Now you're stuck with it.

Actually the phrase "she appears to be Caucasian" is gold enough. That might be my next sigline...

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

Warren initially denies knowing why Harvard touted her as Native American
The controversy was sparked in late April 2012, when the Boston Herald revealed[1] that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, based on a report in The Harvard Crimson in 1996[2]:

“Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.”

The Harvard Crimson reported similar information in 1998[3]:

Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.

Prior to the Herald report, the public was unaware that Warren claimed to be Cherokee. In none of the public interviews[4] or testimony she gave prior to that point had Warren revealed that she was Native American.

In the introductory campaign video explaining “Who I Am,”[5]Warren did not mention being Native American.

When confronted by reporters, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard[6] was promoting her as Native American, and said that she only learned of it by reading the newspaper reports.[7]

- See more at: Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

And now you're posting about what Harvard Law School did (after she was already hired)...

... even though your own post contradicts what you've been flmoating (in bold).

Are you completely ignorant of how rhetorical argument works?

Oh, so now you're going to blame Harvard.

It's WHAT YOUR OWN POST SAYS! HELLOOOO??

Do you know how to even read? See if you can figure out the difference between:

"Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member" (which is verbatim what you posted)
-- and:
"Warren promoted herself as a Native American faculty member" (which I just made up, the same way you made it up)

Further, your own post notes (TWICE) that Warren herself didn't bring it up.

Partisan hacknoid.

She filled out her paperwork and stated that she was a native American. When confronted with that fact, she denied it at first, acting like she didn't know what they were talking about. Then, when she was confronted by the fact that it was HER who filled out her paperwork to reflect native American status, she was like . . . . "oh yeah, the parties. . . . " ROFL.

Where is this "paperwork" that your own post puts the lie to? Paperwork about what?

 

[ChrisL]

I posted you a link. Didn't you look at it? Want me to post it again? She does look Caucasian. She has white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh. Lol. Therefore, the chances of her facing any kind of discrimination due to her ethnicity is bogus.

She is ridiculous. There is just no getting around that, is there? Lol.

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

Warren initially denies knowing why Harvard touted her as Native American
The controversy was sparked in late April 2012, when the Boston Herald revealed[1] that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, based on a report in The Harvard Crimson in 1996[2]:

“Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.”

The Harvard Crimson reported similar information in 1998[3]:

Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.

Prior to the Herald report, the public was unaware that Warren claimed to be Cherokee. In none of the public interviews[4] or testimony she gave prior to that point had Warren revealed that she was Native American.

In the introductory campaign video explaining “Who I Am,”[5]Warren did not mention being Native American.

When confronted by reporters, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard[6] was promoting her as Native American, and said that she only learned of it by reading the newspaper reports.[7]

- See more at: Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

And now you're posting about what Harvard Law School did (after she was already hired)...

... even though your own post contradicts what you've been flmoating (in bold).

Are you completely ignorant of how rhetorical argument works?

Oh, so now you're going to blame Harvard.

It's WHAT YOUR OWN POST SAYS! HELLOOOO??

Do you know how to even read? See if you can figure out the difference between:

"Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member" (which is verbatim what you posted)
-- and:
"Warren promoted herself as a Native American faculty member" (which I just made up, the same way you made it up)

Further, your own post notes (TWICE) that Warren herself didn't bring it up.

Partisan hacknoid.

She filled out her paperwork and stated that she was a native American. When confronted with that fact, she denied it at first, acting like she didn't know what they were talking about. Then, when she was confronted by the fact that it was HER who filled out her paperwork to reflect native American status, she was like . . . . "oh yeah, the parties. . . . " ROFL.

Where is this "paperwork" that your own post puts the lie to? Paperwork about what?

She filled out her forms for Harvard claiming that she was a native American. Harvard did not fill out her paperwork. They released information based upon the paperwork she filled out. So yes, according to Harvard law school, she promoted herself as a native American. ??? This is certainly not difficult to understand, so I don't know why you are confused.

She initially denied knowing anything about it when confronted, and then when evidence was presented to her, she admitted that she had done this based upon "family stories" she had been told as a child. Lol. Get it?

 

[Pogo]

What part of "Strawman" is sailing over your pointy little head here? This "discrimination" canard is YOUR assertion -- no one else's.

I don't see how you can participate in a forum like this without knowing what a "strawman" is....

>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:​

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <<​

Now then...
Why do you hate America?

Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

Warren initially denies knowing why Harvard touted her as Native American
The controversy was sparked in late April 2012, when the Boston Herald revealed[1] that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, based on a report in The Harvard Crimson in 1996[2]:

“Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.”

The Harvard Crimson reported similar information in 1998[3]:

Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.

Prior to the Herald report, the public was unaware that Warren claimed to be Cherokee. In none of the public interviews[4] or testimony she gave prior to that point had Warren revealed that she was Native American.

In the introductory campaign video explaining “Who I Am,”[5]Warren did not mention being Native American.

When confronted by reporters, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard[6] was promoting her as Native American, and said that she only learned of it by reading the newspaper reports.[7]

- See more at: Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

And now you're posting about what Harvard Law School did (after she was already hired)...

... even though your own post contradicts what you've been flmoating (in bold).

Are you completely ignorant of how rhetorical argument works?

Oh, so now you're going to blame Harvard.

It's WHAT YOUR OWN POST SAYS! HELLOOOO??

Do you know how to even read? See if you can figure out the difference between:

"Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member" (which is verbatim what you posted)
-- and:
"Warren promoted herself as a Native American faculty member" (which I just made up, the same way you made it up)

Further, your own post notes (TWICE) that Warren herself didn't bring it up.

Partisan hacknoid.

She filled out her paperwork and stated that she was a native American. When confronted with that fact, she denied it at first, acting like she didn't know what they were talking about. Then, when she was confronted by the fact that it was HER who filled out her paperwork to reflect native American status, she was like . . . . "oh yeah, the parties. . . . " ROFL.

Where is this "paperwork" that your own post puts the lie to? Paperwork about what?

She filled out her forms for Harvard claiming that she was a native American. Harvard did not fill out her paperwork. They released information based upon the paperwork she filled out. So yes, according to Harvard law school, she promoted herself as a native American. ??? This is certainly not difficult to understand, so I don't know why you are confused.

She initially denied knowing anything about it when confronted, and then when evidence was presented to her, she admitted that she had done this based upon "family stories" she had been told as a child. Lol. Get it?

WHAT forms??? WHERE ARE THEY??

We can sit here all day and claim "she filled out forms" and "Pee Wee Herman killed JFK" and "Obama is Hitler's extraterrestrial baby" -- doesn't make any of them actually exist in reality.

What I'm saying, in little easy-to-folllow words is this: You can't just make shit up.

Your own post (546) directly contradicts everything you're making up here. Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Or both?

 

[ChrisL]

Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

Warren initially denies knowing why Harvard touted her as Native American
The controversy was sparked in late April 2012, when the Boston Herald revealed[1] that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, based on a report in The Harvard Crimson in 1996[2]:

“Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.”

The Harvard Crimson reported similar information in 1998[3]:

Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.

Prior to the Herald report, the public was unaware that Warren claimed to be Cherokee. In none of the public interviews[4] or testimony she gave prior to that point had Warren revealed that she was Native American.

In the introductory campaign video explaining “Who I Am,”[5]Warren did not mention being Native American.

When confronted by reporters, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard[6] was promoting her as Native American, and said that she only learned of it by reading the newspaper reports.[7]

- See more at: Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

And now you're posting about what Harvard Law School did (after she was already hired)...

... even though your own post contradicts what you've been flmoating (in bold).

Are you completely ignorant of how rhetorical argument works?

Oh, so now you're going to blame Harvard.

It's WHAT YOUR OWN POST SAYS! HELLOOOO??

Do you know how to even read? See if you can figure out the difference between:

"Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member" (which is verbatim what you posted)
-- and:
"Warren promoted herself as a Native American faculty member" (which I just made up, the same way you made it up)

Further, your own post notes (TWICE) that Warren herself didn't bring it up.

Partisan hacknoid.

She filled out her paperwork and stated that she was a native American. When confronted with that fact, she denied it at first, acting like she didn't know what they were talking about. Then, when she was confronted by the fact that it was HER who filled out her paperwork to reflect native American status, she was like . . . . "oh yeah, the parties. . . . " ROFL.

Where is this "paperwork" that your own post puts the lie to? Paperwork about what?

She filled out her forms for Harvard claiming that she was a native American. Harvard did not fill out her paperwork. They released information based upon the paperwork she filled out. So yes, according to Harvard law school, she promoted herself as a native American. ??? This is certainly not difficult to understand, so I don't know why you are confused.

She initially denied knowing anything about it when confronted, and then when evidence was presented to her, she admitted that she had done this based upon "family stories" she had been told as a child. Lol. Get it?

WHAT forms??? WHERE ARE THEY??

We can sit here all day and claim "she filled out forms" and "Pee Wee Herman killed JFK" and "Obama is Hitler's extraterrestrial baby" -- doesn't make any of them actually exist.

What I'm saying, in little easy-to-folllow words is this: You can't just make shit up.

Your own post contradicts everything you're making up here. Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Or both?

Look, I'm sorry that you apparently cannot read. Like I told you, ALL of that information is contained in the link. Now this is the last time that I am going to pull up an excerpt from the article for you (notice the bold). READ it please.

Excerpt from link:

Warren had put herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools but dropped from that list when she gain tenure at Harvard in 1995.

Warren had not previously revealed these law directory entries. The AALS directory was used as a recruiting tool[10] by law schools in that time period in order to identify, among other things, minority law professors.

According to Professor David Bernstein[11]:

“In the old days before the Internet, you’d pull out the AALS directory and look up people. There are schools that if they were looking for a minority faculty member, would go to that list and might say, ‘I didn’t know Elizabeth Warren was a minority,’ ” said George Mason University Law professor David Bernstein, a former chairman of the American Association of Law Schools.

Warren aides clammed up yesterday and refused to answer questions about why she stopped listing herself in the AALS directory after 1995. Around that time, Harvard Law School started boasting that Warren was their first minority female professor.

“That appendix strikes me as obviously allowing people to announce themselves as being members of minority groups in case people are looking for such members for whatever reason,” Bernstein said.

When confronted with this information, Warren admitted[12] she had filled out forms listing herself as Native American, claiming she wanted to meet other Native Americans:[13]

- See more at: Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

 

[ChrisL]

Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

Warren initially denies knowing why Harvard touted her as Native American
The controversy was sparked in late April 2012, when the Boston Herald revealed[1] that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, based on a report in The Harvard Crimson in 1996[2]:

“Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.”

The Harvard Crimson reported similar information in 1998[3]:

Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.

Prior to the Herald report, the public was unaware that Warren claimed to be Cherokee. In none of the public interviews[4] or testimony she gave prior to that point had Warren revealed that she was Native American.

In the introductory campaign video explaining “Who I Am,”[5]Warren did not mention being Native American.

When confronted by reporters, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard[6] was promoting her as Native American, and said that she only learned of it by reading the newspaper reports.[7]

- See more at: Elizabeth Warren Native American Cherokee Controversy Elizabeth Warren Wiki

And now you're posting about what Harvard Law School did (after she was already hired)...

... even though your own post contradicts what you've been flmoating (in bold).

Are you completely ignorant of how rhetorical argument works?

Oh, so now you're going to blame Harvard.

It's WHAT YOUR OWN POST SAYS! HELLOOOO??

Do you know how to even read? See if you can figure out the difference between:

"Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member" (which is verbatim what you posted)
-- and:
"Warren promoted herself as a Native American faculty member" (which I just made up, the same way you made it up)

Further, your own post notes (TWICE) that Warren herself didn't bring it up.

Partisan hacknoid.

She filled out her paperwork and stated that she was a native American. When confronted with that fact, she denied it at first, acting like she didn't know what they were talking about. Then, when she was confronted by the fact that it was HER who filled out her paperwork to reflect native American status, she was like . . . . "oh yeah, the parties. . . . " ROFL.

Where is this "paperwork" that your own post puts the lie to? Paperwork about what?

She filled out her forms for Harvard claiming that she was a native American. Harvard did not fill out her paperwork. They released information based upon the paperwork she filled out. So yes, according to Harvard law school, she promoted herself as a native American. ??? This is certainly not difficult to understand, so I don't know why you are confused.

She initially denied knowing anything about it when confronted, and then when evidence was presented to her, she admitted that she had done this based upon "family stories" she had been told as a child. Lol. Get it?

WHAT forms??? WHERE ARE THEY??

We can sit here all day and claim "she filled out forms" and "Pee Wee Herman killed JFK" and "Obama is Hitler's extraterrestrial baby" -- doesn't make any of them actually exist in reality.

What I'm saying, in little easy-to-folllow words is this: You can't just make shit up.

Your own post (546) directly contradicts everything you're making up here. Were you lying then, or are you lying now? Or both?

SHE said she filled out FORMS for Harvard claiming native American status.