Elizabeth Warren? Seriously?

[The Rabbi]

I really hope the Dems run Warren. She is totally unelectable outside of Cuba and North Korea.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, but she did. She is either stupid (even I would know not to portray myself as a minority without proper documentation), or she is just plain dishonest. Kind of like you actually!

Your proof, madam...
Your proof, madam...
Your proof, madam...
Your proof, madam...

Talk is cheap.

Yes Lizzy has proved talk is very cheap. Where's her proof?

Your claim; your burden.
Can't handle the burden? Then don't make the claim.

I showed you her ancestors were all white and therefore she's a liar

Yyyyyyyah.

So you believe after fifty thousand years a human's ancestors reduce to two grea-grandparents.
Who presumably mate with what -- amoeba?

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't work in the field of genealogy.
Or anything that involves logical deduction. Or thought.

So we're all Cherokee?

 

[Pogo]

So Pogo, Elizabeth admits that represented herself as a native American at several different colleges that she attended. She was also listed as a minority in several different articles that featured her as a member of staff.

And you have two different things going on here you're trying to conflate hoping nobody notices, missy:

(one thing) - listed herself as "Native American"
(other thing) - was listed as a "minority"

I've color coded them so you're seeing eye dog can lead you to them.

Now we're off to English class. What do we notice that's different in the actions between these two:
1) "she listed herself"
2) "she was listed"
Who's doing the listing?

In example 1, "she" is doing her own listing ("herself" being reflexive). In example 2, some outside party is doing it. "Was listed" is passive voice. Means it was done TO or ABOUT her, by entites not stated. In this case we know that these entities were a couple of universities where she was employed.

That's not EW doing the listing. It's a university bureaucrat.

Now let's go to the original claim that started this bullshit-ball rolling - by a political election opponent. Scott Brown said,

“[Elizabeth Warren] checked the box. She had an opportunity, actually, to make a decision throughout her career. When she applied to Penn and Harvard, she checked the box claiming she was Native American, and, you know, clearly she’s not.”

Yet Penn and Harvard have gone on record saying she did no such thing, that they were not told or aware of any such ethnicity, and in fact the only "boxes" she "checked that we know of were (1) at the U of Texas (where they asked for ethnicity, the choices including "Native American or Alaskan Native") where she checked only "White" (and this would be after hiring anyway)*; and (2) at Rutgers where the application asked, “Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?" where she checked “no”. Both of these are on record.

*(source here, which also notes:

>> Lopez said professors typically do not fill out standard job applications and instead rely on curriculum vitae when applying for jobs. Once hired, professors and other employees are required to fill out a larger biographical form, which includes the minority identification question. Lopez said the school’s records indicate that Warren did not update her form after she first filled it out, probably sometime around 1981. <<​

So there is no box to check upon application anyway. There may be such a box for those applying for janitor but this is a professional position -- which echoes my experience in the same institutions; you don't sit in the lobby filling out a standard employment form, you send a résumé, a CV and letters of recommendation)

So it would appear there is indeed a liar here, and he's so full of shit his name is Brown.

Not enough? Let's see what else ol' Brown-eyes said. This directly from their debate:
“Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of color -- and as you can see, she is not.”

Let that sink in... "as you can see". Really. See my earlier post of all those Cherokee faces.
"As you can see". I guess because hey, Elvis isn't wearing a feather headdress and patting his mouth going "woo-boo-boo". Della Reese isn't shooting arrows. Winston Churchill not smoke-um peace pipe. "As we can see", they can't be Native American.

Please.

Your other point that she used such status either to facilitate her hire at any of these institutions or receive advantages on its basis, have not only no evidence, but has been in fact contradicted by those institution's hiring personnel and Warren herself via the record of her specifically declining admission on that basis (Rutgers above).

When confronted, she eventually admitted (after some denial of knowing about it at all), that she had in fact done this. She said her reason was because she wanted to "meet other people like me." When confronted with the fact that there was no traceable lineage to any kind of native American heritage in her family tree, she said that she based it upon stories told to her by her elder family members.

Now, I think you would have to be either dishonest or a complete retard to represent yourself as a minority based upon such things. I think any reasonable person would agree with that assessment too.

Wrong. She "admitted" (your term) to having disclosed heritage into to Harvard and Penn after being already hired -- which is a different animal from what she may have listed for herself with AALS. Whatever the Ivy schools did with that info we touched on above (their actions, not hers); the AALS listing format -- which is unrelated to these school administrations -- does not specify "Native American"/"Black"/"Asian" etc, but simply the one broad category of "minority". And as we touched on before, "minority" in this age of Affirmative Action in its complete form includes women.

Now as to the "claim" basis (the weasel word "claim" is noted; it was no such thing), none of those listings, forms, interviews, etc require a documentation for validation. Where any such documentation IS required is in being counted as a member of the Cherokee Nation, i.e being a citizen of that nation. This is where the "documentation" fad keeps creeping in --- but Elizabeth Warren has never claimed to be a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. So that benchmark is also bullshit.

I mean I have Irish ethnicity -- plenty of it from both parents -- but that doesn't make me a damn citizen of Ireland, nor do I claim it does.

Finally (fair warning Frank--- stop reading here) we still have that inconvenient genealogy record from 1894.
Have a look at that crap Frank keeps posting ---- cherrypicked census forms from two great-grandparents (out of 8) stating "white" -- as if a box on a census form, checked in a time when checking "Indian" would have been self-identifying with a lower caste --- is somehow a more reliable indicator than family lore. How come you're not mocking Frank for that speciousity?

Family history is suspect but a census answer form is not?
Having it both ways: Priceless.

Oh wait, that would be confirmed family lore. Her siblings already corroborated it.

Your move.

Pogo insists that Harvard and Penn listed Lizzy Cheekbones as Native American of their own volition. Further, since the great grandparents who live in Cherokee territory were white, it can only mean that Lizzy Cheekbones OTHER set of great grandparents, who neither Pogo nor Lizzy identify, must be Cherokee.

That link you keep going over lists an "O.C. Sarah Smith".
She's listed as Cherokee, not amoeba. Funny how that works.

Yours in elucidation,
Captain Buzzkill

Now back to your regularly scheduled yoga position, the ostrichasana....

You mean Oopsies Sarah Smith?
"
Lynda Smith, the amateur genealogist who unknowingly found herself at the root of the false “Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee” meme introduced to the media by “noted” genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, acknowledged in an email to me this past Saturday, May 12, that her statement in a March 2006 family newsletter upon which Mr. Child based his claim of Ms. Warren’s Cherokee ancestry was made with no supporting documentation. It was, in fact, an honest mistake that Ms. Smith now acknowledges is entirely without foundation.

Ms. Smith had been quoted in a statement in a March 2006 newsletter that William J. Crawford had listed his mother, Ms. Warren’s great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith, as a Cherokee on an 1894 Oklahoma Territory marriage license application(emphasis added). In addition, she acknowledged that the same statement in her posting at a rootsweb page about William J. Crawford was made based on no documentation.

Ms. Smith was assisted in unraveling this mystery, and coming to the realization that this statement had no basis in documentation, by Sam Morningstar, a fellow amateur genealogist who states that he is an enrolled member in a Native American tribe. Mr. Morningstar began investigating Ms. Warren’s purported Cherokee ancestry on May 1, the day that “noted” genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society was quoted saying in the Boston Herald that he had discovered a “marriage certificate” from 1894 that confirmed Ms. Warren’s claim of Native American ancestry."

Amateur Genealogist Who Backed 1 32 Cherokee Warren Now Admits Mistake - Breitbart

No, I know nothing about a claim from 2006; I gave you a link from 2012.
But I've already seen the Dimbart page, talk about sources who play loosely with the facts, no wonder you're so fucked up --- they go on and on about how they sent e-mail queries and didn't get an answer.

Well guess what me lad. Not getting a response is not the same thing as getting a response that refutes the original, so when they somehow interpret this as a refutation, they are once again playing loosely with facts.

Kind of like you do when you claim you found two great-grandparents and they say "white", therefore that means anybody else related to them doesn't count.

Dumbass.

 

[Pogo]

Your proof, madam...
Your proof, madam...
Your proof, madam...
Your proof, madam...

Talk is cheap.

Yes Lizzy has proved talk is very cheap. Where's her proof?

Your claim; your burden.
Can't handle the burden? Then don't make the claim.

I showed you her ancestors were all white and therefore she's a liar

Yyyyyyyah.

So you believe after fifty thousand years a human's ancestors reduce to two grea-grandparents.
Who presumably mate with what -- amoeba?

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't work in the field of genealogy.
Or anything that involves logical deduction. Or thought.

There's something seriously fucking wrong with you.

Which of her ancestors were Cherokee? The great grandparents who lives in Cherokee territory were WHITE! Are you saying that she has other, as yet unidentified great grandparents who were Cherokees and living where -- in France?

Tell us again how Winston Churchill said Lizzy is an Indian

Winston Churchill said nothing about this.
His picture is up there because "as you can see" he doesn't "look" Native American in the Scott Brown sense. But he was.

As are/were all those others pictured.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Pogo, Elizabeth admits that represented herself as a native American at several different colleges that she attended. She was also listed as a minority in several different articles that featured her as a member of staff.

And you have two different things going on here you're trying to conflate hoping nobody notices, missy:

(one thing) - listed herself as "Native American"
(other thing) - was listed as a "minority"

I've color coded them so you're seeing eye dog can lead you to them.

Now we're off to English class. What do we notice that's different in the actions between these two:
1) "she listed herself"
2) "she was listed"
Who's doing the listing?

In example 1, "she" is doing her own listing ("herself" being reflexive). In example 2, some outside party is doing it. "Was listed" is passive voice. Means it was done TO or ABOUT her, by entites not stated. In this case we know that these entities were a couple of universities where she was employed.

That's not EW doing the listing. It's a university bureaucrat.

Now let's go to the original claim that started this bullshit-ball rolling - by a political election opponent. Scott Brown said,

“[Elizabeth Warren] checked the box. She had an opportunity, actually, to make a decision throughout her career. When she applied to Penn and Harvard, she checked the box claiming she was Native American, and, you know, clearly she’s not.”

Yet Penn and Harvard have gone on record saying she did no such thing, that they were not told or aware of any such ethnicity, and in fact the only "boxes" she "checked that we know of were (1) at the U of Texas (where they asked for ethnicity, the choices including "Native American or Alaskan Native") where she checked only "White" (and this would be after hiring anyway)*; and (2) at Rutgers where the application asked, “Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?" where she checked “no”. Both of these are on record.

*(source here, which also notes:

>> Lopez said professors typically do not fill out standard job applications and instead rely on curriculum vitae when applying for jobs. Once hired, professors and other employees are required to fill out a larger biographical form, which includes the minority identification question. Lopez said the school’s records indicate that Warren did not update her form after she first filled it out, probably sometime around 1981. <<​

So there is no box to check upon application anyway. There may be such a box for those applying for janitor but this is a professional position -- which echoes my experience in the same institutions; you don't sit in the lobby filling out a standard employment form, you send a résumé, a CV and letters of recommendation)

So it would appear there is indeed a liar here, and he's so full of shit his name is Brown.

Not enough? Let's see what else ol' Brown-eyes said. This directly from their debate:
“Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of color -- and as you can see, she is not.”

Let that sink in... "as you can see". Really. See my earlier post of all those Cherokee faces.
"As you can see". I guess because hey, Elvis isn't wearing a feather headdress and patting his mouth going "woo-boo-boo". Della Reese isn't shooting arrows. Winston Churchill not smoke-um peace pipe. "As we can see", they can't be Native American.

Please.

Your other point that she used such status either to facilitate her hire at any of these institutions or receive advantages on its basis, have not only no evidence, but has been in fact contradicted by those institution's hiring personnel and Warren herself via the record of her specifically declining admission on that basis (Rutgers above).

When confronted, she eventually admitted (after some denial of knowing about it at all), that she had in fact done this. She said her reason was because she wanted to "meet other people like me." When confronted with the fact that there was no traceable lineage to any kind of native American heritage in her family tree, she said that she based it upon stories told to her by her elder family members.

Now, I think you would have to be either dishonest or a complete retard to represent yourself as a minority based upon such things. I think any reasonable person would agree with that assessment too.

Wrong. She "admitted" (your term) to having disclosed heritage into to Harvard and Penn after being already hired -- which is a different animal from what she may have listed for herself with AALS. Whatever the Ivy schools did with that info we touched on above (their actions, not hers); the AALS listing format -- which is unrelated to these school administrations -- does not specify "Native American"/"Black"/"Asian" etc, but simply the one broad category of "minority". And as we touched on before, "minority" in this age of Affirmative Action in its complete form includes women.

Now as to the "claim" basis (the weasel word "claim" is noted; it was no such thing), none of those listings, forms, interviews, etc require a documentation for validation. Where any such documentation IS required is in being counted as a member of the Cherokee Nation, i.e being a citizen of that nation. This is where the "documentation" fad keeps creeping in --- but Elizabeth Warren has never claimed to be a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. So that benchmark is also bullshit.

I mean I have Irish ethnicity -- plenty of it from both parents -- but that doesn't make me a damn citizen of Ireland, nor do I claim it does.

Finally (fair warning Frank--- stop reading here) we still have that inconvenient genealogy record from 1894.
Have a look at that crap Frank keeps posting ---- cherrypicked census forms from two great-grandparents (out of 8) stating "white" -- as if a box on a census form, checked in a time when checking "Indian" would have been self-identifying with a lower caste --- is somehow a more reliable indicator than family lore. How come you're not mocking Frank for that speciousity?

Family history is suspect but a census answer form is not?
Having it both ways: Priceless.

Oh wait, that would be confirmed family lore. Her siblings already corroborated it.

Your move.

Pogo insists that Harvard and Penn listed Lizzy Cheekbones as Native American of their own volition. Further, since the great grandparents who live in Cherokee territory were white, it can only mean that Lizzy Cheekbones OTHER set of great grandparents, who neither Pogo nor Lizzy identify, must be Cherokee.

That link you keep going over lists an "O.C. Sarah Smith".
She's listed as Cherokee, not amoeba. Funny how that works.

Yours in elucidation,
Captain Buzzkill

Now back to your regularly scheduled yoga position, the ostrichasana....

You mean Oopsies Sarah Smith?
"
Lynda Smith, the amateur genealogist who unknowingly found herself at the root of the false “Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee” meme introduced to the media by “noted” genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, acknowledged in an email to me this past Saturday, May 12, that her statement in a March 2006 family newsletter upon which Mr. Child based his claim of Ms. Warren’s Cherokee ancestry was made with no supporting documentation. It was, in fact, an honest mistake that Ms. Smith now acknowledges is entirely without foundation.

Ms. Smith had been quoted in a statement in a March 2006 newsletter that William J. Crawford had listed his mother, Ms. Warren’s great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith, as a Cherokee on an 1894 Oklahoma Territory marriage license application(emphasis added). In addition, she acknowledged that the same statement in her posting at a rootsweb page about William J. Crawford was made based on no documentation.

Ms. Smith was assisted in unraveling this mystery, and coming to the realization that this statement had no basis in documentation, by Sam Morningstar, a fellow amateur genealogist who states that he is an enrolled member in a Native American tribe. Mr. Morningstar began investigating Ms. Warren’s purported Cherokee ancestry on May 1, the day that “noted” genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society was quoted saying in the Boston Herald that he had discovered a “marriage certificate” from 1894 that confirmed Ms. Warren’s claim of Native American ancestry."

Amateur Genealogist Who Backed 1 32 Cherokee Warren Now Admits Mistake - Breitbart

No, I know nothing about a claim from 2006; I gave you a link from 2012.
But I've already seen the Dimbart page, talk about sources who play loosely with the facts, no wonder you're so fucked up --- they go on and on about how they sent e-mail queries and didn't get an answer.

Well guess what me lad. Not getting a response is not the same thing as getting a response that refutes the original, so when they somehow interpret this as a refutation, they are once again playing loosely with facts.

Kind of like you do when you claim you found two great-grandparents and they say "white", therefore that means anybody else related to them doesn't count.

Dumbass.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The Warrens in Cherokee territory were white, therefore some other as yet unidentified relatives were Cherokee

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

She's a nut AND a Marxist; she's the PERFECT Democrat

 

[ChrisL]

And you have two different things going on here you're trying to conflate hoping nobody notices, missy:

(one thing) - listed herself as "Native American"
(other thing) - was listed as a "minority"

I've color coded them so you're seeing eye dog can lead you to them.

Now we're off to English class. What do we notice that's different in the actions between these two:
1) "she listed herself"
2) "she was listed"
Who's doing the listing?

No Pogo, you are wrong. She listed herself as a minority. Then when confronted with this information, that is when SHE claimed that she was a native American and this was based on stories by her family.

In example 1, "she" is doing her own listing ("herself" being reflexive). In example 2, some outside party is doing it. "Was listed" is passive voice. Means it was done TO or ABOUT her, by entites not stated. In this case we know that these entities were a couple of universities where she was employed.

That's not EW doing the listing. It's a university bureaucrat.

Now let's go to the original claim that started this bullshit-ball rolling - by a political election opponent. Scott Brown said,

Are you trying to insinuate the the colleges listed her as a minority?

“[Elizabeth Warren] checked the box. She had an opportunity, actually, to make a decision throughout her career. When she applied to Penn and Harvard, she checked the box claiming she was Native American, and, you know, clearly she’s not.”

Yet Penn and Harvard have gone on record saying she did no such thing, that they were not told or aware of any such ethnicity, and in fact the only "boxes" she "checked that we know of were (1) at the U of Texas (where they asked for ethnicity, the choices including "Native American or Alaskan Native") where she checked only "White" (and this would be after hiring anyway)*; and (2) at Rutgers where the application asked, “Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?" where she checked “no”. Both of these are on record.

You are just playing semantics. SHE did this. She admitted that she did it. Why do YOU keep ignoring the fact that she ADMITTED to doing it. Duh.

*(source here, which also notes:

>> Lopez said professors typically do not fill out standard job applications and instead rely on curriculum vitae when applying for jobs. Once hired, professors and other employees are required to fill out a larger biographical form, which includes the minority identification question. Lopez said the school’s records indicate that Warren did not update her form after she first filled it out, probably sometime around 1981. <<​

So there is no box to check upon application anyway. There may be such a box for those applying for janitor but this is a professional position -- which echoes my experience in the same institutions; you don't sit in the lobby filling out a standard employment form, you send a résumé, a CV and letters of recommendation)

So it would appear there is indeed a liar here, and he's so full of shit his name is Brown.

Not enough? Let's see what else ol' Brown-eyes said. This directly from their debate:
“Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of color -- and as you can see, she is not.”

There is NO evidence that she is a native American or any other minority. Anyone knows that you don't claim to be minority if you are not. That is shitty.

Let that sink in... "as you can see". Really. See my earlier post of all those Cherokee faces.
"As you can see". I guess because hey, Elvis isn't wearing a feather headdress and patting his mouth going "woo-boo-boo". Della Reese isn't shooting arrows. Winston Churchill not smoke-um peace pipe. "As we can see", they can't be Native American.

Please.

Your other point that she used such status either to facilitate her hire at any of these institutions or receive advantages on its basis, have not only no evidence, but has been in fact contradicted by those institution's hiring personnel and Warren herself via the record of her specifically declining admission on that basis (Rutgers above).

When confronted, she eventually admitted (after some denial of knowing about it at all), that she had in fact done this. She said her reason was because she wanted to "meet other people like me." When confronted with the fact that there was no traceable lineage to any kind of native American heritage in her family tree, she said that she based it upon stories told to her by her elder family members.

Now, I think you would have to be either dishonest or a complete retard to represent yourself as a minority based upon such things. I think any reasonable person would agree with that assessment too.

Wrong. She "admitted" (your term) to having disclosed heritage into to Harvard and Penn after being already hired -- which is a different animal from what she may have listed for herself with AALS. Whatever the Ivy schools did with that info we touched on above (their actions, not hers); the AALS listing format -- which is unrelated to these school administrations -- does not specify "Native American"/"Black"/"Asian" etc, but simply the one broad category of "minority". And as we touched on before, "minority" in this age of Affirmative Action in its complete form includes women.

Now as to the "claim" basis (the weasel word "claim" is noted; it was no such thing), none of those listings, forms, interviews, etc require a documentation for validation. Where any such documentation IS required is in being counted as a member of the Cherokee Nation, i.e being a citizen of that nation. This is where the "documentation" fad keeps creeping in --- but Elizabeth Warren has never claimed to be a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. So that benchmark is also bullshit.

I mean I have Irish ethnicity -- plenty of it from both parents -- but that doesn't make me a damn citizen of Ireland, nor do I claim it does.

Finally (fair warning Frank--- stop reading here) we still have that inconvenient genealogy record from 1894.
Have a look at that crap Frank keeps posting ---- cherrypicked census forms from two great-grandparents (out of 8) stating "white" -- as if a box on a census form, checked in a time when checking "Indian" would have been self-identifying with a lower caste --- is somehow a more reliable indicator than family lore. How come you're not mocking Frank for that speciousity?

Family history is suspect but a census answer form is not?
Having it both ways: Priceless.

Oh wait, that would be confirmed family lore. Her siblings already corroborated it.

Your move.

Let THIS sink in. SHE admitted that she did it based upon nothing more than stories.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes Lizzy has proved talk is very cheap. Where's her proof?

Your claim; your burden.
Can't handle the burden? Then don't make the claim.

I showed you her ancestors were all white and therefore she's a liar

Yyyyyyyah.

So you believe after fifty thousand years a human's ancestors reduce to two grea-grandparents.
Who presumably mate with what -- amoeba?

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't work in the field of genealogy.
Or anything that involves logical deduction. Or thought.

There's something seriously fucking wrong with you.

Which of her ancestors were Cherokee? The great grandparents who lives in Cherokee territory were WHITE! Are you saying that she has other, as yet unidentified great grandparents who were Cherokees and living where -- in France?

Tell us again how Winston Churchill said Lizzy is an Indian

Winston Churchill said nothing about this.
His picture is up there because "as you can see" he doesn't "look" Native American in the Scott Brown sense. But he was.

As are/were all those others pictured.

That means nothing. The point is that she most certainly knew better (being the well educated woman that she is) that she should not ever represent herself as a minority without adequate documentation to prove it.

My deduction, she is incredibly dishonest and did a dishonest thing (several times at least) to try to get special attention.

 

[Pogo]

Your claim; your burden.
Can't handle the burden? Then don't make the claim.

I showed you her ancestors were all white and therefore she's a liar

Yyyyyyyah.

So you believe after fifty thousand years a human's ancestors reduce to two grea-grandparents.
Who presumably mate with what -- amoeba?

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't work in the field of genealogy.
Or anything that involves logical deduction. Or thought.

There's something seriously fucking wrong with you.

Which of her ancestors were Cherokee? The great grandparents who lives in Cherokee territory were WHITE! Are you saying that she has other, as yet unidentified great grandparents who were Cherokees and living where -- in France?

Tell us again how Winston Churchill said Lizzy is an Indian

Winston Churchill said nothing about this.
His picture is up there because "as you can see" he doesn't "look" Native American in the Scott Brown sense. But he was.

As are/were all those others pictured.

That means nothing. The point is that she most certainly knew better (being the well educated woman that she is) that she should not ever represent herself as a minority without adequate documentation to prove it.

My deduction, she is incredibly dishonest and did a dishonest thing (several times at least) to try to get special attention.

It means heap big plenty to Scott Brown and his parrots here who lean on "she doesn't look like one". Because as demonstrated, there is no "look".

As for "adequate documentation", far as I can tell anywhere she mentioned it she provided exactly the documentation required for those avenues -- which is none. Now, had she been applying for minority status as offered applying to Rutgers, we can guess that might have requested some kind of documentation. But she didn't -- she checked the box marked "No".

Sorry if Duh Bubble does not approve dis message. But that's the way it is here in Fact Land.

 

[Pogo]

And you have two different things going on here you're trying to conflate hoping nobody notices, missy:

(one thing) - listed herself as "Native American"
(other thing) - was listed as a "minority"

I've color coded them so you're seeing eye dog can lead you to them.

Now we're off to English class. What do we notice that's different in the actions between these two:
1) "she listed herself"
2) "she was listed"
Who's doing the listing?

No Pogo, you are wrong. She listed herself as a minority. Then when confronted with this information, that is when SHE claimed that she was a native American and this was based on stories by her family.

In example 1, "she" is doing her own listing ("herself" being reflexive). In example 2, some outside party is doing it. "Was listed" is passive voice. Means it was done TO or ABOUT her, by entites not stated. In this case we know that these entities were a couple of universities where she was employed.

That's not EW doing the listing. It's a university bureaucrat.

Now let's go to the original claim that started this bullshit-ball rolling - by a political election opponent. Scott Brown said,

Are you trying to insinuate the the colleges listed her as a minority?

“[Elizabeth Warren] checked the box. She had an opportunity, actually, to make a decision throughout her career. When she applied to Penn and Harvard, she checked the box claiming she was Native American, and, you know, clearly she’s not.”

Yet Penn and Harvard have gone on record saying she did no such thing, that they were not told or aware of any such ethnicity, and in fact the only "boxes" she "checked that we know of were (1) at the U of Texas (where they asked for ethnicity, the choices including "Native American or Alaskan Native") where she checked only "White" (and this would be after hiring anyway)*; and (2) at Rutgers where the application asked, “Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?" where she checked “no”. Both of these are on record.

You are just playing semantics. SHE did this. She admitted that she did it. Why do YOU keep ignoring the fact that she ADMITTED to doing it. Duh.

*(source here, which also notes:

>> Lopez said professors typically do not fill out standard job applications and instead rely on curriculum vitae when applying for jobs. Once hired, professors and other employees are required to fill out a larger biographical form, which includes the minority identification question. Lopez said the school’s records indicate that Warren did not update her form after she first filled it out, probably sometime around 1981. <<​

So there is no box to check upon application anyway. There may be such a box for those applying for janitor but this is a professional position -- which echoes my experience in the same institutions; you don't sit in the lobby filling out a standard employment form, you send a résumé, a CV and letters of recommendation)

So it would appear there is indeed a liar here, and he's so full of shit his name is Brown.

Not enough? Let's see what else ol' Brown-eyes said. This directly from their debate:
“Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of color -- and as you can see, she is not.”

There is NO evidence that she is a native American or any other minority. Anyone knows that you don't claim to be minority if you are not. That is shitty.

Let that sink in... "as you can see". Really. See my earlier post of all those Cherokee faces.
"As you can see". I guess because hey, Elvis isn't wearing a feather headdress and patting his mouth going "woo-boo-boo". Della Reese isn't shooting arrows. Winston Churchill not smoke-um peace pipe. "As we can see", they can't be Native American.

Please.

Your other point that she used such status either to facilitate her hire at any of these institutions or receive advantages on its basis, have not only no evidence, but has been in fact contradicted by those institution's hiring personnel and Warren herself via the record of her specifically declining admission on that basis (Rutgers above).

When confronted, she eventually admitted (after some denial of knowing about it at all), that she had in fact done this. She said her reason was because she wanted to "meet other people like me." When confronted with the fact that there was no traceable lineage to any kind of native American heritage in her family tree, she said that she based it upon stories told to her by her elder family members.

Now, I think you would have to be either dishonest or a complete retard to represent yourself as a minority based upon such things. I think any reasonable person would agree with that assessment too.

Wrong. She "admitted" (your term) to having disclosed heritage into to Harvard and Penn after being already hired -- which is a different animal from what she may have listed for herself with AALS. Whatever the Ivy schools did with that info we touched on above (their actions, not hers); the AALS listing format -- which is unrelated to these school administrations -- does not specify "Native American"/"Black"/"Asian" etc, but simply the one broad category of "minority". And as we touched on before, "minority" in this age of Affirmative Action in its complete form includes women.

Now as to the "claim" basis (the weasel word "claim" is noted; it was no such thing), none of those listings, forms, interviews, etc require a documentation for validation. Where any such documentation IS required is in being counted as a member of the Cherokee Nation, i.e being a citizen of that nation. This is where the "documentation" fad keeps creeping in --- but Elizabeth Warren has never claimed to be a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. So that benchmark is also bullshit.

I mean I have Irish ethnicity -- plenty of it from both parents -- but that doesn't make me a damn citizen of Ireland, nor do I claim it does.

Finally (fair warning Frank--- stop reading here) we still have that inconvenient genealogy record from 1894.
Have a look at that crap Frank keeps posting ---- cherrypicked census forms from two great-grandparents (out of 8) stating "white" -- as if a box on a census form, checked in a time when checking "Indian" would have been self-identifying with a lower caste --- is somehow a more reliable indicator than family lore. How come you're not mocking Frank for that speciousity?

Family history is suspect but a census answer form is not?
Having it both ways: Priceless.

Oh wait, that would be confirmed family lore. Her siblings already corroborated it.

Your move.

Let THIS sink in. SHE admitted that she did it based upon nothing more than stories.

"Did" what? that's a long post; "it" could refer to a million things.

I claimed Irishness based on nothing more than stories too. So the fuck what?

 

[Political Junky]

You haven't brought a "legitimate issue" to this thread yet. Oh thanks for the sigline.
Now why are you so obsessed with race anyway?

How am I obsessed with race? By noting that Liz doesn't look like and most likely is NOT a native American?

Oh, and how very mature of you. Lol. Now, I'm going to ask again nicely for you to remove my quote as your sig line. If not, you are going to have to be the first person I report, because I'm pretty sure you can't do that without permission by the person you are quoting.

Hey, if you don't want your words to live in infamy, don't put 'em out there. But it's kinda fascinating, psychologically, that at the same time you're wiling to lie about what somebody else didn't say.... innit?


Yes, by all these posts obsessing about Native American blood, that's what I call obsessed with race. And then to top it off with "she looks like one" can only recall this.... (0:28)

​

She does. She looks like a Caucasian and not like a native American. She has WHITE skin, you tard.

See what I mean about race-obsessed?

No, I don't. Answer the question. Would you describe Elizabeth Warren as a native American woman or a woman of color, or as a Caucasian woman?

There are Cherokees in North Carolina & Tennessee who look Caucasian.

 

[ChrisL]

How am I obsessed with race? By noting that Liz doesn't look like and most likely is NOT a native American?

Oh, and how very mature of you. Lol. Now, I'm going to ask again nicely for you to remove my quote as your sig line. If not, you are going to have to be the first person I report, because I'm pretty sure you can't do that without permission by the person you are quoting.

Hey, if you don't want your words to live in infamy, don't put 'em out there. But it's kinda fascinating, psychologically, that at the same time you're wiling to lie about what somebody else didn't say.... innit?


Yes, by all these posts obsessing about Native American blood, that's what I call obsessed with race. And then to top it off with "she looks like one" can only recall this.... (0:28)

​

She does. She looks like a Caucasian and not like a native American. She has WHITE skin, you tard.

See what I mean about race-obsessed?

No, I don't. Answer the question. Would you describe Elizabeth Warren as a native American woman or a woman of color, or as a Caucasian woman?

There are Cherokees in North Carolina & Tennessee who look Caucasian.

Do you think Elizabeth Warren faced discrimination due to her "Cherokee" heritage? Lol.

 

[Pogo]

And you have two different things going on here you're trying to conflate hoping nobody notices, missy:

(one thing) - listed herself as "Native American"
(other thing) - was listed as a "minority"

I've color coded them so you're seeing eye dog can lead you to them.

Now we're off to English class. What do we notice that's different in the actions between these two:
1) "she listed herself"
2) "she was listed"
Who's doing the listing?

In example 1, "she" is doing her own listing ("herself" being reflexive). In example 2, some outside party is doing it. "Was listed" is passive voice. Means it was done TO or ABOUT her, by entites not stated. In this case we know that these entities were a couple of universities where she was employed.

That's not EW doing the listing. It's a university bureaucrat.

Now let's go to the original claim that started this bullshit-ball rolling - by a political election opponent. Scott Brown said,

“[Elizabeth Warren] checked the box. She had an opportunity, actually, to make a decision throughout her career. When she applied to Penn and Harvard, she checked the box claiming she was Native American, and, you know, clearly she’s not.”

Yet Penn and Harvard have gone on record saying she did no such thing, that they were not told or aware of any such ethnicity, and in fact the only "boxes" she "checked that we know of were (1) at the U of Texas (where they asked for ethnicity, the choices including "Native American or Alaskan Native") where she checked only "White" (and this would be after hiring anyway)*; and (2) at Rutgers where the application asked, “Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?" where she checked “no”. Both of these are on record.

*(source here, which also notes:

>> Lopez said professors typically do not fill out standard job applications and instead rely on curriculum vitae when applying for jobs. Once hired, professors and other employees are required to fill out a larger biographical form, which includes the minority identification question. Lopez said the school’s records indicate that Warren did not update her form after she first filled it out, probably sometime around 1981. <<​

So there is no box to check upon application anyway. There may be such a box for those applying for janitor but this is a professional position -- which echoes my experience in the same institutions; you don't sit in the lobby filling out a standard employment form, you send a résumé, a CV and letters of recommendation)

So it would appear there is indeed a liar here, and he's so full of shit his name is Brown.

Not enough? Let's see what else ol' Brown-eyes said. This directly from their debate:
“Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of color -- and as you can see, she is not.”

Let that sink in... "as you can see". Really. See my earlier post of all those Cherokee faces.
"As you can see". I guess because hey, Elvis isn't wearing a feather headdress and patting his mouth going "woo-boo-boo". Della Reese isn't shooting arrows. Winston Churchill not smoke-um peace pipe. "As we can see", they can't be Native American.

Please.

Your other point that she used such status either to facilitate her hire at any of these institutions or receive advantages on its basis, have not only no evidence, but has been in fact contradicted by those institution's hiring personnel and Warren herself via the record of her specifically declining admission on that basis (Rutgers above).

Wrong. She "admitted" (your term) to having disclosed heritage into to Harvard and Penn after being already hired -- which is a different animal from what she may have listed for herself with AALS. Whatever the Ivy schools did with that info we touched on above (their actions, not hers); the AALS listing format -- which is unrelated to these school administrations -- does not specify "Native American"/"Black"/"Asian" etc, but simply the one broad category of "minority". And as we touched on before, "minority" in this age of Affirmative Action in its complete form includes women.

Now as to the "claim" basis (the weasel word "claim" is noted; it was no such thing), none of those listings, forms, interviews, etc require a documentation for validation. Where any such documentation IS required is in being counted as a member of the Cherokee Nation, i.e being a citizen of that nation. This is where the "documentation" fad keeps creeping in --- but Elizabeth Warren has never claimed to be a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. So that benchmark is also bullshit.

I mean I have Irish ethnicity -- plenty of it from both parents -- but that doesn't make me a damn citizen of Ireland, nor do I claim it does.

Finally (fair warning Frank--- stop reading here) we still have that inconvenient genealogy record from 1894.
Have a look at that crap Frank keeps posting ---- cherrypicked census forms from two great-grandparents (out of 8) stating "white" -- as if a box on a census form, checked in a time when checking "Indian" would have been self-identifying with a lower caste --- is somehow a more reliable indicator than family lore. How come you're not mocking Frank for that speciousity?

Family history is suspect but a census answer form is not?
Having it both ways: Priceless.

Oh wait, that would be confirmed family lore. Her siblings already corroborated it.

Your move.

Pogo insists that Harvard and Penn listed Lizzy Cheekbones as Native American of their own volition. Further, since the great grandparents who live in Cherokee territory were white, it can only mean that Lizzy Cheekbones OTHER set of great grandparents, who neither Pogo nor Lizzy identify, must be Cherokee.

That link you keep going over lists an "O.C. Sarah Smith".
She's listed as Cherokee, not amoeba. Funny how that works.

Yours in elucidation,
Captain Buzzkill

Now back to your regularly scheduled yoga position, the ostrichasana....

You mean Oopsies Sarah Smith?
"
Lynda Smith, the amateur genealogist who unknowingly found herself at the root of the false “Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee” meme introduced to the media by “noted” genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, acknowledged in an email to me this past Saturday, May 12, that her statement in a March 2006 family newsletter upon which Mr. Child based his claim of Ms. Warren’s Cherokee ancestry was made with no supporting documentation. It was, in fact, an honest mistake that Ms. Smith now acknowledges is entirely without foundation.

Ms. Smith had been quoted in a statement in a March 2006 newsletter that William J. Crawford had listed his mother, Ms. Warren’s great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith, as a Cherokee on an 1894 Oklahoma Territory marriage license application(emphasis added). In addition, she acknowledged that the same statement in her posting at a rootsweb page about William J. Crawford was made based on no documentation.

Ms. Smith was assisted in unraveling this mystery, and coming to the realization that this statement had no basis in documentation, by Sam Morningstar, a fellow amateur genealogist who states that he is an enrolled member in a Native American tribe. Mr. Morningstar began investigating Ms. Warren’s purported Cherokee ancestry on May 1, the day that “noted” genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society was quoted saying in the Boston Herald that he had discovered a “marriage certificate” from 1894 that confirmed Ms. Warren’s claim of Native American ancestry."

Amateur Genealogist Who Backed 1 32 Cherokee Warren Now Admits Mistake - Breitbart

No, I know nothing about a claim from 2006; I gave you a link from 2012.
But I've already seen the Dimbart page, talk about sources who play loosely with the facts, no wonder you're so fucked up --- they go on and on about how they sent e-mail queries and didn't get an answer.

Well guess what me lad. Not getting a response is not the same thing as getting a response that refutes the original, so when they somehow interpret this as a refutation, they are once again playing loosely with facts.

Kind of like you do when you claim you found two great-grandparents and they say "white", therefore that means anybody else related to them doesn't count.

Dumbass.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The Warrens in Cherokee territory were white, therefore some other as yet unidentified relatives were Cherokee

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

You cited TWO PEOPLE, Frank. You know how many ancestors we all have??

2 parents...
4 grandparents... (that's six now, 2+4)
8 great-grandparents (which means you missed six others) (we're up to a total of 14 at this point)
16 great-great grandparents... (30)
32 great-great-great grandparents... (62 people here)
64 great-great-great-great grandparents.. (126)
128 great-great-great-great-great grandparents... (254)
256 great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents... (510)
512 great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents... (1012)
1024 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents... (2036)
2048 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents... (4084)
4096 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents... (8180)
8192 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents... (16,372)
16,384 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents...

We're up to nearly thirty-three thousand people here Frank. And every last one of them is an ancestor.
You tracked down two. And even then you have only census records of racial reports -- from a time when answering anything other than "white" made you a second-class citizen.
Better get busy on the next 32,754 census records. Nomsayin'?

I don't envy the task. But then I don't make ridiculous assertions I can't back up.

 

[Pogo]

How am I obsessed with race? By noting that Liz doesn't look like and most likely is NOT a native American?

Oh, and how very mature of you. Lol. Now, I'm going to ask again nicely for you to remove my quote as your sig line. If not, you are going to have to be the first person I report, because I'm pretty sure you can't do that without permission by the person you are quoting.

Hey, if you don't want your words to live in infamy, don't put 'em out there. But it's kinda fascinating, psychologically, that at the same time you're wiling to lie about what somebody else didn't say.... innit?


Yes, by all these posts obsessing about Native American blood, that's what I call obsessed with race. And then to top it off with "she looks like one" can only recall this.... (0:28)

​

She does. She looks like a Caucasian and not like a native American. She has WHITE skin, you tard.

See what I mean about race-obsessed?

No, I don't. Answer the question. Would you describe Elizabeth Warren as a native American woman or a woman of color, or as a Caucasian woman?

There are Cherokees in North Carolina & Tennessee who look Caucasian.

And everywhere else.

In the far western part of this state (the Eastern Cherokee Nation) where road signs are in Cherokee, you still don't know who's actual Cherokee unless they tell you.

Based on family stories of course.

 

[ChrisL]

Hey, if you don't want your words to live in infamy, don't put 'em out there. But it's kinda fascinating, psychologically, that at the same time you're wiling to lie about what somebody else didn't say.... innit?


Yes, by all these posts obsessing about Native American blood, that's what I call obsessed with race. And then to top it off with "she looks like one" can only recall this.... (0:28)

​

She does. She looks like a Caucasian and not like a native American. She has WHITE skin, you tard.

See what I mean about race-obsessed?

No, I don't. Answer the question. Would you describe Elizabeth Warren as a native American woman or a woman of color, or as a Caucasian woman?

There are Cherokees in North Carolina & Tennessee who look Caucasian.

And everywhere else.

In the far western part of this state (the Eastern Cherokee Nation) where road signs are in Cherokee, you still don't know who's actual Cherokee unless they tell you.

Based on family stories of course.

No, based on genealogy and research. In order to be accepted into a tribe, you need more than just stories. Really, I thought you were smarter than this. I guess not.

 

[Pogo]

She does. She looks like a Caucasian and not like a native American. She has WHITE skin, you tard.

See what I mean about race-obsessed?

No, I don't. Answer the question. Would you describe Elizabeth Warren as a native American woman or a woman of color, or as a Caucasian woman?

There are Cherokees in North Carolina & Tennessee who look Caucasian.

And everywhere else.

In the far western part of this state (the Eastern Cherokee Nation) where road signs are in Cherokee, you still don't know who's actual Cherokee unless they tell you.

Based on family stories of course.

No, based on genealogy and research. In order to be accepted into a tribe, you need more than just stories. Really, I thought you were smarter than this. I guess not.

Aaaaand right back into the CCC - the Citizenship Conflation Canard.
The Eastern Cherokees do indeed have genealogical standards for inclusion in the Nation. But our subject here never claimed to be a citizen of the Cherokee nation. Citizenship/ethnicity -- know the difference.

Nice try, no peace pipe.

And next time you wanna go "I thought you were smarter than this" you might wanna also save the embarrassment of leaving a hole big enough to drive a rhetorical truck through.

Vrooom!

 

[ChrisL]

See what I mean about race-obsessed?

No, I don't. Answer the question. Would you describe Elizabeth Warren as a native American woman or a woman of color, or as a Caucasian woman?

There are Cherokees in North Carolina & Tennessee who look Caucasian.

And everywhere else.

In the far western part of this state (the Eastern Cherokee Nation) where road signs are in Cherokee, you still don't know who's actual Cherokee unless they tell you.

Based on family stories of course.

No, based on genealogy and research. In order to be accepted into a tribe, you need more than just stories. Really, I thought you were smarter than this. I guess not.

Aaaaand right back into the CCC - the Citizenship Conflation Canard.
The Eastern Cherokees do indeed have genealogical standards for inclusion in the Nation. But our subject here never claimed to be a citizen. Nice try, no peace pipe.

You are wrong, as usual.

 

[Pogo]

No, I don't. Answer the question. Would you describe Elizabeth Warren as a native American woman or a woman of color, or as a Caucasian woman?

There are Cherokees in North Carolina & Tennessee who look Caucasian.

And everywhere else.

In the far western part of this state (the Eastern Cherokee Nation) where road signs are in Cherokee, you still don't know who's actual Cherokee unless they tell you.

Based on family stories of course.

No, based on genealogy and research. In order to be accepted into a tribe, you need more than just stories. Really, I thought you were smarter than this. I guess not.

Aaaaand right back into the CCC - the Citizenship Conflation Canard.
The Eastern Cherokees do indeed have genealogical standards for inclusion in the Nation. But our subject here never claimed to be a citizen. Nice try, no peace pipe.

You are wrong, as usual.

Oh. OH. Well this changes everything. Why didn't you tell me this before?
Cold hard logic. There's just no retort to this. My head swims.

Course, now you have the burden of showing us all where she claims to be a citizen of Cherokee Nation....

 

[The Rabbi]

How am I obsessed with race? By noting that Liz doesn't look like and most likely is NOT a native American?

Oh, and how very mature of you. Lol. Now, I'm going to ask again nicely for you to remove my quote as your sig line. If not, you are going to have to be the first person I report, because I'm pretty sure you can't do that without permission by the person you are quoting.

Hey, if you don't want your words to live in infamy, don't put 'em out there. But it's kinda fascinating, psychologically, that at the same time you're wiling to lie about what somebody else didn't say.... innit?


Yes, by all these posts obsessing about Native American blood, that's what I call obsessed with race. And then to top it off with "she looks like one" can only recall this.... (0:28)

​

She does. She looks like a Caucasian and not like a native American. She has WHITE skin, you tard.

See what I mean about race-obsessed?

No, I don't. Answer the question. Would you describe Elizabeth Warren as a native American woman or a woman of color, or as a Caucasian woman?

There are Cherokees in North Carolina & Tennessee who look Caucasian.

There are black people who can pass for white.
Do you think Elizabeth Warren is black?

 

[ChrisL]

There are Cherokees in North Carolina & Tennessee who look Caucasian.

And everywhere else.

In the far western part of this state (the Eastern Cherokee Nation) where road signs are in Cherokee, you still don't know who's actual Cherokee unless they tell you.

Based on family stories of course.

No, based on genealogy and research. In order to be accepted into a tribe, you need more than just stories. Really, I thought you were smarter than this. I guess not.

Aaaaand right back into the CCC - the Citizenship Conflation Canard.
The Eastern Cherokees do indeed have genealogical standards for inclusion in the Nation. But our subject here never claimed to be a citizen. Nice try, no peace pipe.

You are wrong, as usual.

Oh. OH. Well this changes everything. Why didn't you tell me this before?
Cold hard logic. There's just no retort to this. My head swims.

Course, now you have the burden of showing us all where she claims to be a citizen of Cherokee Nation....

Your head is swimming from all the poop in it.