Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is white a color?This is ironic because, until the Boston Herald first broke the news in April 2012 that Harvard Law School had repeatedly promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member, Warren never once mentioned these stories of her upbringing in a single press interview, speech, class lecture or testimony at any point, ever, in her decades-long career. What's more, Warren was not listed as a minority on her transcript from George Washington University where she began her undergraduate education, nor did she list herself as a minority when applying to Rutgers University Law School in 1973.
In fact, it was not until she was in her 30s and focused on climbing the highly competitive ladder of law school academia that Warren apparently rediscovered her Native American heritage. It’s important to note that entrance and advancement in the law school profession is governed by the Association of American Law Schools, which requires registrants interested in teaching at law schools to fill out a questionnaire detailing their education, experience, bar passage and, yes, ethnicity. This information is then disseminated to law schools around the country that, as Warren surely knew, are always on the lookout to add to the diversity of their faculty.
A copy of Warren's questionnaire currently resides in the Association of American Law Schools archives at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. However, only Warren herself has the authority to release the complete copy of her questionnaire and to date, she has refused to do so.
See highlighted from the USA today piece.... PogoGirl, you reading?
She was touted as Harvard's first "woman of color" on the faculty!!! Can you believe that crap? A woman of color?
And where does it say that?
Wait wait, don't tell me --- same place it talks about "going to parties"??
It's in the link that you refuse to read.
Too bad sweet cheeks -- I already opened the one link that went anywhere and word-searched "of color".
Not there.
Guss that makes you a liar.
"The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62"
Elizabeth Warren - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"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"
Same link, you don't make a claim you cannot prove.
You failed to provide "proof" of anything here beyond that you can successfully link a Wiki page.
Do you not understand the concept of proving a negative? Let's take it slowly.
Your statement above: "Ms. Warren lied" (about having Native American ethnicity).
In order for that to be true you have to (let's highlight that, YOU, not she) prove the non-existence of N-Am blood in the subject's genealogy.
A Wiki link saying somebody failed to find the positive ----- does not prove the negative.
Is that seeping through, or do you need littler words?
Moreover, a document from 1894 actually does indicate a Cherokee antecedent -- found by a member of that New England Genealogical Society -- the same entity you quoted above.
More moreover, you're undermined your own position, admitting that Warren's siblings heard the same stories. For a "lie" to be present, the liar must know that what she's saying is false. You just shot that in the foot too, as they all heard the stories.
I'm afraid you fell on your face here.
Splat.
Are you trying to convince yourself?I think so. It's quite obvious that a woman who is intelligent enough to attend Harvard would know better than to claim minority status on ANY application based upon family stories. If so, then she is a complete idiot and should NEVER run for any public office.
That point has nothing whatsoever to do with "Harvard". Can't you read??
That point is about proving a negative. Which NONE of you can do.
Politico[20] uncovered that in 1997 The Fordham Law Journal listed Warren as Harvard Law School’s first “woman of color” on the faculty:
“There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries,” the piece says. “This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reaons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.”"
Take it up with whoever wrote that which, the reference being in third person, obviously is not Warren.
You're still trying to swat away the inconvenient fact that the point above has nothing to do with Harvard, but has to do with proving the negative, this absence of Cherokee/Delaware blood.
I can see why you'd want that question to go away. But it won't.
Your proof, sir?
"The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62"
Elizabeth Warren - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"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"
Same link, you don't make a claim you cannot prove.
You failed to provide "proof" of anything here beyond that you can successfully link a Wiki page.
Do you not understand the concept of proving a negative? Let's take it slowly.
Your statement above: "Ms. Warren lied" (about having Native American ethnicity).
In order for that to be true you have to (let's highlight that, YOU, not she) prove the non-existence of N-Am blood in the subject's genealogy.
A Wiki link saying somebody failed to find the positive ----- does not prove the negative.
Is that seeping through, or do you need littler words?
Moreover, a document from 1894 actually does indicate a Cherokee antecedent -- found by a member of that New England Genealogical Society -- the same entity you quoted above.
More moreover, you're undermined your own position, admitting that Warren's siblings heard the same stories. For a "lie" to be present, the liar must know that what she's saying is false. You just shot that in the foot too, as they all heard the stories.
I'm afraid you fell on your face here.
Splat.
You are a dumbshit Pogs.....and you have been a dumbshit in every forum I have encountered you on
""The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62"
You've lost again, pride is a nasty thing.
You cannot prove a negative -- and you just proved that you can't.
Oh the density.
Um, ah ....um,...You're stupid.
"The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62"
Elizabeth Warren - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"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"
Same link, you don't make a claim you cannot prove.
You failed to provide "proof" of anything here beyond that you can successfully link a Wiki page.
Do you not understand the concept of proving a negative? Let's take it slowly.
Your statement above: "Ms. Warren lied" (about having Native American ethnicity).
In order for that to be true you have to (let's highlight that, YOU, not she) prove the non-existence of N-Am blood in the subject's genealogy.
A Wiki link saying somebody failed to find the positive ----- does not prove the negative.
Is that seeping through, or do you need littler words?
Moreover, a document from 1894 actually does indicate a Cherokee antecedent -- found by a member of that New England Genealogical Society -- the same entity you quoted above.
More moreover, you're undermined your own position, admitting that Warren's siblings heard the same stories. For a "lie" to be present, the liar must know that what she's saying is false. You just shot that in the foot too, as they all heard the stories.
I'm afraid you fell on your face here.
Splat.
Are you trying to convince yourself?
That point has nothing whatsoever to do with "Harvard". Can't you read??
That point is about proving a negative. Which NONE of you can do.
Politico[20] uncovered that in 1997 The Fordham Law Journal listed Warren as Harvard Law School’s first “woman of color” on the faculty:
“There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries,” the piece says. “This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reaons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.”"
Take it up with whoever wrote that which, the reference being in third person, obviously is not Warren.
You're still trying to swat away the inconvenient fact that the point above has nothing to do with Harvard, but has to do with proving the negative, this absence of Cherokee/Delaware blood.
I can see why you'd want that question to go away. But it won't.
"The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62"
Elizabeth Warren - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"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"
Same link, you don't make a claim you cannot prove.
You failed to provide "proof" of anything here beyond that you can successfully link a Wiki page.
Do you not understand the concept of proving a negative? Let's take it slowly.
Your statement above: "Ms. Warren lied" (about having Native American ethnicity).
In order for that to be true you have to (let's highlight that, YOU, not she) prove the non-existence of N-Am blood in the subject's genealogy.
A Wiki link saying somebody failed to find the positive ----- does not prove the negative.
Is that seeping through, or do you need littler words?
Moreover, a document from 1894 actually does indicate a Cherokee antecedent -- found by a member of that New England Genealogical Society -- the same entity you quoted above.
More moreover, you're undermined your own position, admitting that Warren's siblings heard the same stories. For a "lie" to be present, the liar must know that what she's saying is false. You just shot that in the foot too, as they all heard the stories.
I'm afraid you fell on your face here.
Splat.
You are a dumbshit Pogs.....and you have been a dumbshit in every forum I have encountered you on
""The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62"
You've lost again, pride is a nasty thing.
You cannot prove a negative -- and you just proved that you can't.
Oh the density.
Um, ah ....um,...You're stupid.
Blow me, Hayseed. Prove the negative and we'll talk turkey. Until then....
You failed to provide "proof" of anything here beyond that you can successfully link a Wiki page.
Do you not understand the concept of proving a negative? Let's take it slowly.
Your statement above: "Ms. Warren lied" (about having Native American ethnicity).
In order for that to be true you have to (let's highlight that, YOU, not she) prove the non-existence of N-Am blood in the subject's genealogy.
A Wiki link saying somebody failed to find the positive ----- does not prove the negative.
Is that seeping through, or do you need littler words?
Moreover, a document from 1894 actually does indicate a Cherokee antecedent -- found by a member of that New England Genealogical Society -- the same entity you quoted above.
More moreover, you're undermined your own position, admitting that Warren's siblings heard the same stories. For a "lie" to be present, the liar must know that what she's saying is false. You just shot that in the foot too, as they all heard the stories.
I'm afraid you fell on your face here.
Splat.
Are you trying to convince yourself?
That point has nothing whatsoever to do with "Harvard". Can't you read??
That point is about proving a negative. Which NONE of you can do.
Politico[20] uncovered that in 1997 The Fordham Law Journal listed Warren as Harvard Law School’s first “woman of color” on the faculty:
“There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries,” the piece says. “This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reaons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.”"
Take it up with whoever wrote that which, the reference being in third person, obviously is not Warren.
You're still trying to swat away the inconvenient fact that the point above has nothing to do with Harvard, but has to do with proving the negative, this absence of Cherokee/Delaware blood.
I can see why you'd want that question to go away. But it won't.
You are the biggest TURD on USMB...and YOU KNOW IT!
Are you trying to convince yourself?
That point has nothing whatsoever to do with "Harvard". Can't you read??
That point is about proving a negative. Which NONE of you can do.
Politico[20] uncovered that in 1997 The Fordham Law Journal listed Warren as Harvard Law School’s first “woman of color” on the faculty:
“There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries,” the piece says. “This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reaons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.”"
Take it up with whoever wrote that which, the reference being in third person, obviously is not Warren.
You're still trying to swat away the inconvenient fact that the point above has nothing to do with Harvard, but has to do with proving the negative, this absence of Cherokee/Delaware blood.
I can see why you'd want that question to go away. But it won't.
You are the biggest TURD on USMB...and YOU KNOW IT!
WOOooooo, he called me poopy-pants!
Devastating point. My head swims.
What a loser.
You failed to provide "proof" of anything here beyond that you can successfully link a Wiki page.
Do you not understand the concept of proving a negative? Let's take it slowly.
Your statement above: "Ms. Warren lied" (about having Native American ethnicity).
In order for that to be true you have to (let's highlight that, YOU, not she) prove the non-existence of N-Am blood in the subject's genealogy.
A Wiki link saying somebody failed to find the positive ----- does not prove the negative.
Is that seeping through, or do you need littler words?
Moreover, a document from 1894 actually does indicate a Cherokee antecedent -- found by a member of that New England Genealogical Society -- the same entity you quoted above.
More moreover, you're undermined your own position, admitting that Warren's siblings heard the same stories. For a "lie" to be present, the liar must know that what she's saying is false. You just shot that in the foot too, as they all heard the stories.
I'm afraid you fell on your face here.
Splat.
Are you trying to convince yourself?
That point has nothing whatsoever to do with "Harvard". Can't you read??
That point is about proving a negative. Which NONE of you can do.
Politico[20] uncovered that in 1997 The Fordham Law Journal listed Warren as Harvard Law School’s first “woman of color” on the faculty:
“There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries,” the piece says. “This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reaons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.”"
Take it up with whoever wrote that which, the reference being in third person, obviously is not Warren.
You're still trying to swat away the inconvenient fact that the point above has nothing to do with Harvard, but has to do with proving the negative, this absence of Cherokee/Delaware blood.
I can see why you'd want that question to go away. But it won't.
You are just getting desperate and deflecting. That much is quite obvious. Liz is a liar. . . or a moron. Disprove that!
Are you trying to convince yourself?
That point has nothing whatsoever to do with "Harvard". Can't you read??
That point is about proving a negative. Which NONE of you can do.
Politico[20] uncovered that in 1997 The Fordham Law Journal listed Warren as Harvard Law School’s first “woman of color” on the faculty:
“There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries,” the piece says. “This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reaons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.”"
Take it up with whoever wrote that which, the reference being in third person, obviously is not Warren.
You're still trying to swat away the inconvenient fact that the point above has nothing to do with Harvard, but has to do with proving the negative, this absence of Cherokee/Delaware blood.
I can see why you'd want that question to go away. But it won't.
You are the biggest TURD on USMB...and YOU KNOW IT!
WOOooooo, he called me poopy-pants!
Devastating point. My head swims.
What a loser.
You failed to provide "proof" of anything here beyond that you can successfully link a Wiki page.
Do you not understand the concept of proving a negative? Let's take it slowly.
Your statement above: "Ms. Warren lied" (about having Native American ethnicity).
In order for that to be true you have to (let's highlight that, YOU, not she) prove the non-existence of N-Am blood in the subject's genealogy.
A Wiki link saying somebody failed to find the positive ----- does not prove the negative.
Is that seeping through, or do you need littler words?
Moreover, a document from 1894 actually does indicate a Cherokee antecedent -- found by a member of that New England Genealogical Society -- the same entity you quoted above.
More moreover, you're undermined your own position, admitting that Warren's siblings heard the same stories. For a "lie" to be present, the liar must know that what she's saying is false. You just shot that in the foot too, as they all heard the stories.
I'm afraid you fell on your face here.
Splat.
You are a dumbshit Pogs.....and you have been a dumbshit in every forum I have encountered you on
""The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62"
You've lost again, pride is a nasty thing.
You cannot prove a negative -- and you just proved that you can't.
Oh the density.
Um, ah ....um,...You're stupid.
Blow me, Hayseed. Prove the negative and we'll talk turkey. Until then....
Your girl can't prove she is Cherokee.......
Talk Turkey? Gobble, gobble, gobble!!"The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62"
Elizabeth Warren - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"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"
Same link, you don't make a claim you cannot prove.
You failed to provide "proof" of anything here beyond that you can successfully link a Wiki page.
Do you not understand the concept of proving a negative? Let's take it slowly.
Your statement above: "Ms. Warren lied" (about having Native American ethnicity).
In order for that to be true you have to (let's highlight that, YOU, not she) prove the non-existence of N-Am blood in the subject's genealogy.
A Wiki link saying somebody failed to find the positive ----- does not prove the negative.
Is that seeping through, or do you need littler words?
Moreover, a document from 1894 actually does indicate a Cherokee antecedent -- found by a member of that New England Genealogical Society -- the same entity you quoted above.
More moreover, you're undermined your own position, admitting that Warren's siblings heard the same stories. For a "lie" to be present, the liar must know that what she's saying is false. You just shot that in the foot too, as they all heard the stories.
I'm afraid you fell on your face here.
Splat.
You are a dumbshit Pogs.....and you have been a dumbshit in every forum I have encountered you on
""The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62"
You've lost again, pride is a nasty thing.
You cannot prove a negative -- and you just proved that you can't.
Oh the density.
Um, ah ....um,...You're stupid.
Blow me, Hayseed. Prove the negative and we'll talk turkey. Until then....
She's SlapahoeYou failed to provide "proof" of anything here beyond that you can successfully link a Wiki page.
Do you not understand the concept of proving a negative? Let's take it slowly.
Your statement above: "Ms. Warren lied" (about having Native American ethnicity).
In order for that to be true you have to (let's highlight that, YOU, not she) prove the non-existence of N-Am blood in the subject's genealogy.
A Wiki link saying somebody failed to find the positive ----- does not prove the negative.
Is that seeping through, or do you need littler words?
Moreover, a document from 1894 actually does indicate a Cherokee antecedent -- found by a member of that New England Genealogical Society -- the same entity you quoted above.
More moreover, you're undermined your own position, admitting that Warren's siblings heard the same stories. For a "lie" to be present, the liar must know that what she's saying is false. You just shot that in the foot too, as they all heard the stories.
I'm afraid you fell on your face here.
Splat.
You are a dumbshit Pogs.....and you have been a dumbshit in every forum I have encountered you on
""The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62"
You've lost again, pride is a nasty thing.
You cannot prove a negative -- and you just proved that you can't.
Oh the density.
Um, ah ....um,...You're stupid.
Blow me, Hayseed. Prove the negative and we'll talk turkey. Until then....
Your girl can't prove she is Cherokee.......
You are a dumbshit Pogs.....and you have been a dumbshit in every forum I have encountered you on
""The New England Historical Genealogical Society found no documentary proof of Warren having Native American lineage,[62"
You've lost again, pride is a nasty thing.
You cannot prove a negative -- and you just proved that you can't.
Oh the density.
Um, ah ....um,...You're stupid.
Blow me, Hayseed. Prove the negative and we'll talk turkey. Until then....
Your girl can't prove she is Cherokee.......
She doesn't need to. You made the assertion "lied" here; that makes it your job. You have to prove she's not.
Is that simple equation beyond your comprehensive capacity?
Are you trying to convince yourself?
That point has nothing whatsoever to do with "Harvard". Can't you read??
That point is about proving a negative. Which NONE of you can do.
Politico[20] uncovered that in 1997 The Fordham Law Journal listed Warren as Harvard Law School’s first “woman of color” on the faculty:
“There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries,” the piece says. “This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reaons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.”"
Take it up with whoever wrote that which, the reference being in third person, obviously is not Warren.
You're still trying to swat away the inconvenient fact that the point above has nothing to do with Harvard, but has to do with proving the negative, this absence of Cherokee/Delaware blood.
I can see why you'd want that question to go away. But it won't.
You are just getting desperate and deflecting. That much is quite obvious. Liz is a liar. . . or a moron. Disprove that!
Not my job.
Your claim, your job.
Why do you want others to do your work for you?
You cannot prove a negative -- and you just proved that you can't.
Oh the density.
Um, ah ....um,...You're stupid.
Blow me, Hayseed. Prove the negative and we'll talk turkey. Until then....
Your girl can't prove she is Cherokee.......
She doesn't need to. You made the assertion "lied" here; that makes it your job. You have to prove she's not.
Is that simple equation beyond your comprehensive capacity?
Nope sorry.
The bitch made a claim and it's hers to prove.
If she doesn't she is a liar.
You aren't very good at this kid.
Anything else, Bubblers?
Went exactly as predicted, G.
Poor lying lizzie is going to have to face some pretty TOUGH questions, eh?
Anything else, Bubblers?
Went exactly as predicted, G.
Anything else, Bubblers?
Went exactly as predicted, G.
I know it. You lost badly.
Anything else, Bubblers?
Went exactly as predicted, G.
Even G KNEW when he was beaten, and cut his loss!
It’s important to note that entrance and advancement in the law school profession is governed by the Association of American Law Schools, which requires registrants interested in teaching at law schools to fill out a questionnaire detailing their education, experience, bar passage and, yes, ethnicity. This information is then disseminated to law schools around the country that, as Warren surely knew, are always on the lookout to add to the diversity of their faculty.
TRY to comprehend THIS, you dumb fuck! ROTFLMFAO!!! Pogo 0-7!!!!
