Is there anyone on thai board who was helped by Affirmative Action?

[Pogo]

This is not meant as a pun but...
How?



And how do you know so much about the genealogy of Oklahomans?

Republicans know Native Americans when they see them

Something about feathers

HA! According to new scientific discoveries, the accepted narrative that those we used to call "Indians" is no longer valid.
A&M study of 24,000-year-old bones finds Native Americans' European ancestry - Worldnews.com

I don't know what that link contains but when I tried to open it it shut down my entire browser so thanks for that.

Suffice to say 24,000 years is a chunk of time in what we might call racial evolution. Go back far enough and we're all Africans. So what?

 

[LeftofLeft]

What other Countries have Affirmative Action and Have they been helped?

 

[Pogo]

Fraud?

Can you prove she is not part Cherokee?

we do not prove negatives here.
She cannot prove she is. She only "said" she is.
And that's beside the point. She only revealed this when the pre election polls showed the race tightening. it was at that point Warren played the race card.
It doesn't matter. Massachusetts is a blue blooded well monied state chock full of limousine liberals. They vote in virtual democrat lockstep.

Damn boy....that sure sounds like bullshit

I'm gunna need a link on that one

Rotsa ruck. I'm still waiting for a link from the first guy that brought it up several hours ago. Actually there he is directly above this post hoping nobody notices.

When you're a revisionist you just make it up. When you're a dittohead you just repeat what you're told -- even easier.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Republicans know Native Americans when they see them

Something about feathers

HA! According to new scientific discoveries, the accepted narrative that those we used to call "Indians" is no longer valid.
A&M study of 24,000-year-old bones finds Native Americans' European ancestry - Worldnews.com

I don't know what that link contains but when I tried to open it it shut down my entire browser so thanks for that.

Suffice to say 24,000 years is a chunk of time in what we might call racial evolution. Go back far enough and we're all Africans. So what?

What do you mean so what?
If that link shut down your web browser, then you're using the wrong one.
Not my problem.
Neither is your whining.

 

[Pogo]

HA! According to new scientific discoveries, the accepted narrative that those we used to call "Indians" is no longer valid.
A&M study of 24,000-year-old bones finds Native Americans' European ancestry - Worldnews.com

I don't know what that link contains but when I tried to open it it shut down my entire browser so thanks for that.

Suffice to say 24,000 years is a chunk of time in what we might call racial evolution. Go back far enough and we're all Africans. So what?

What do you mean so what?
If that link shut down your web browser, then you're using the wrong one.
Not my problem.
Neither is your whining.

So...... can't articulate the point? Because you don't have one?

Is this supposed to be about Clovis Boy? Because that's 12,600 years -- not 24,000. And what would be your point anyway?

 

[JQPublic1]

Insisting one is correct does not make them correct.
"white males"...
Racist comment.
You libs use the term "white" as though being Caucasian makes one a criminal.

The truth hurts doesn't it? BTW he used the term "white males" not "white." White women are white too; or are you suggesting that they are not really white?

Oh sure.
Don't hand me that nonsense.
Truth? What truth?
I don't see you denying you people consider "white" = The enemy.

What nonsense? Are you denying that white women are white?

Here is some truth for ya! Caucasian and "white" are often NOT the same. Both terms are social constructs that have little bearing on reality.

Another thing! No one has asked "us people," who ever we are, if white= the enemy!
Take it from me, white is NOT the enemy but certain white elements within the conservative consortium are! They, in fact, are the enemies off all progressive Americans and especially the poor!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sssooooo.... having money prevents you from "crusading for the poor"? Which is not her job btw, she's a senator.

Is your source for this figure the same one that tells you about the racial strains of Oklahomans? Because your link isn't working. Neither one.

Warren’s net worth as of the end of 2011 was as high as $14.5 million

Elizabeth Warren Income and Net Worth « Elizabeth Warren Wiki



She can be a crusader for the poor and at the same time be rich. When did I say otherwise? She's secretly one of these rich people she bemoans about. Makes you think does she really want to fight inequality all that much and go after those evil rich people, or is that just an act for her constituents.

There is a difference between those who are wealthy and advocate higher tax rates on themselves and those who are wealthy and advocate cuts in programs for the poor

Name some people who are wealthy and advocate higher taxes on themselves...
But wait....There is more.
Name the ones NOT using every possible loophole in the tax code to keep as much from Uncle Sam as possible.
Also, please explain the difference between a rich person and a rich person.
You people with this wealth thing are really digging a hole for yourselves.
No need to explain. You know your hypocrisy in this area.

 

[Pogo]

Elizabeth Warren Income and Net Worth « Elizabeth Warren Wiki

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poMe7Ymiqjs

She can be a crusader for the poor and at the same time be rich. When did I say otherwise? She's secretly one of these rich people she bemoans about. Makes you think does she really want to fight inequality all that much and go after those evil rich people, or is that just an act for her constituents.

There is a difference between those who are wealthy and advocate higher tax rates on themselves and those who are wealthy and advocate cuts in programs for the poor

Name some people who are wealthy and advocate higher taxes on themselves...

Warren Buffet.

Doesn't matter anyway; the claim was "she claimed minority status at Harvard".

When that was challenged the goalposts were moved (by a second poster) to "she's not part Cherokee".

When that was challenged the poster moved the goalposts again to "she's a fraud".

When that was challenged the reasoning given was "she's wealthy and can't crusade for the poor". Which does not follow.

That poster ran away too. You're the third clown trying to run with this ball. Who are you going to lateral to?

Where's the evidence?
And where are the first two posters who ran away?

It comes down to this: the three of you are dealing in bullshit. When challenged all you can do is change the charge, move the goalposts, toss non sequiturs and run away.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is a difference between those who are wealthy and advocate higher tax rates on themselves and those who are wealthy and advocate cuts in programs for the poor

Name some people who are wealthy and advocate higher taxes on themselves...

Warren Buffet.

Doesn't matter anyway; the claim was "she claimed minority status at Harvard".

When that was challenged the goalposts were moved (by a second poster) to "she's not part Cherokee".

When that was challenged the poster moved the goalposts again to "she's a fraud".

When that was challenged the reasoning given was "she's wealthy and can't crusade for the poor". Which does not follow.

That poster ran away too. You're the third clown trying to run with this ball. Who are you going to lateral to?

Where's the evidence?
And where are the first two posters who ran away?

It comes down to this: the three of you are dealing in bullshit. When challenged all you can do is change the charge, move the goalposts, toss non sequiturs and run away.

Yeah, I knew that name would pop up. He paid lip service.
Moving the goal posts. Yep. An excuse you libs use when you lose the debate.
Running away...Gotta love that one.
It just makes you lib's skin crawl when you cannot get people to entertain your petty rants.
No. It's called no longer wish to discuss because all that has needed ot be said, has been said,.
You people argue just to argue.

 

[Pogo]

Name some people who are wealthy and advocate higher taxes on themselves...

Warren Buffet.

Doesn't matter anyway; the claim was "she claimed minority status at Harvard".

When that was challenged the goalposts were moved (by a second poster) to "she's not part Cherokee".

When that was challenged the poster moved the goalposts again to "she's a fraud".

When that was challenged the reasoning given was "she's wealthy and can't crusade for the poor". Which does not follow.

That poster ran away too. You're the third clown trying to run with this ball. Who are you going to lateral to?

Where's the evidence?
And where are the first two posters who ran away?

It comes down to this: the three of you are dealing in bullshit. When challenged all you can do is change the charge, move the goalposts, toss non sequiturs and run away.

Yeah, I knew that name would pop up. He paid lip service.
Moving the goal posts. Yep. An excuse you libs use when you lose the debate.
Running away...Gotta love that one.
It just makes you lib's skin crawl when you cannot get people to entertain your petty rants.
No. It's called no longer wish to discuss because all that has needed ot be said, has been said,.
You people argue just to argue.

Yuh huh.
You got your answer --- where is my answer to 211?
Where's Rightwinger's answer to 218?
Where's my answer to 226?
Where's your link to "She only revealed this when the pre election polls showed the race tightening"?

Oh that's right. You ran away.

Hypocrite.

 

[JQPublic1]

So you admit that Obama is the first AA president, interesting. You also admit that all successful blacks didn't make it on their own they needed an advantage. Again interesting revelation.

The only admissionI see here is yours: admitting that your myopic opinion is devoid of historical significance regarding Affirmative Action. Obama is brilliant, far smarter than GW Bush or his father. If there is such a thing as traditional Affirmative Action, it surely must apply to the Bush dynasty.

The interesting revelation is that you don't realize that no one can make it entirely on their own, especially if your group is a minory that is held in contempt by a larger hostile group. However, some powerful white Christians acted in concert with talented Black icons to uplift those who were worthy and willing! Even as the roar of vocal and violent complaints from millions of white constituents filled the airwaves and fueled a media frenzy!

The words of an Obamabot...A true believer. A sycophant.
If Obama is so brilliant, so infallible why then is the country in such shambles?

I don't believe the country is in shambles. It is far better off under Obama than under Reagan or Bush! Most of the destruction attributed to Obama really originated on Bush's watch.

 

[rightwinger]

Elizabeth Warren Income and Net Worth « Elizabeth Warren Wiki

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poMe7Ymiqjs

She can be a crusader for the poor and at the same time be rich. When did I say otherwise? She's secretly one of these rich people she bemoans about. Makes you think does she really want to fight inequality all that much and go after those evil rich people, or is that just an act for her constituents.

There is a difference between those who are wealthy and advocate higher tax rates on themselves and those who are wealthy and advocate cuts in programs for the poor

Name some people who are wealthy and advocate higher taxes on themselves...
But wait....There is more.
Name the ones NOT using every possible loophole in the tax code to keep as much from Uncle Sam as possible.
Also, please explain the difference between a rich person and a rich person.
You people with this wealth thing are really digging a hole for yourselves.
No need to explain. You know your hypocrisy in this area.

Everybody plays by the same rules.......John Kerry, Bill Clinton even Mitt Romney

Liberal politicians are trying to change those rules for EVERYONE including themselves

Wealthy conservatives are trying to change the rules so that the poor receive less....damned 47%

That is the difference

 

[thereisnospoon]

The only admissionI see here is yours: admitting that your myopic opinion is devoid of historical significance regarding Affirmative Action. Obama is brilliant, far smarter than GW Bush or his father. If there is such a thing as traditional Affirmative Action, it surely must apply to the Bush dynasty.

The interesting revelation is that you don't realize that no one can make it entirely on their own, especially if your group is a minory that is held in contempt by a larger hostile group. However, some powerful white Christians acted in concert with talented Black icons to uplift those who were worthy and willing! Even as the roar of vocal and violent complaints from millions of white constituents filled the airwaves and fueled a media frenzy!

The words of an Obamabot...A true believer. A sycophant.
If Obama is so brilliant, so infallible why then is the country in such shambles?

I don't believe the country is in shambles. It is far better off under Obama than under Reagan or Bush! Most of the destruction attributed to Obama really originated on Bush's watch.

What you believe is what you believe.
The facts are clear. Not a single quarter since 2009 has seen GDP growth in excess of 1.7%.
Essentially that is a a flat economy.
Companies are not expanding because the economy simply does not support it plus the threat of Obamacare and new taxes on horizon is forcing business to hunker down and keep their capital in the bank.
Blaming Bush?
Now there goes your credibility right into the crapper.
Obama is in the 6th year of his administration. I think the time for excuses is over. This is Obama's watch. Time for you Obama loyalists to suck it up and accept responsibility.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is a difference between those who are wealthy and advocate higher tax rates on themselves and those who are wealthy and advocate cuts in programs for the poor

Name some people who are wealthy and advocate higher taxes on themselves...
But wait....There is more.
Name the ones NOT using every possible loophole in the tax code to keep as much from Uncle Sam as possible.
Also, please explain the difference between a rich person and a rich person.
You people with this wealth thing are really digging a hole for yourselves.
No need to explain. You know your hypocrisy in this area.

Everybody plays by the same rules.......John Kerry, Bill Clinton even Mitt Romney

Liberal politicians are trying to change those rules for EVERYONE including themselves

Wealthy conservatives are trying to change the rules so that the poor receive less....damned 47%

That is the difference

That's a horseshit response. You know God damned well you separate wealthy democrats and liberals and make excuses for them.

 

[rightwinger]

The words of an Obamabot...A true believer. A sycophant.
If Obama is so brilliant, so infallible why then is the country in such shambles?

I don't believe the country is in shambles. It is far better off under Obama than under Reagan or Bush! Most of the destruction attributed to Obama really originated on Bush's watch.

What you believe is what you believe.
The facts are clear. Not a single quarter since 2009 has seen GDP growth in excess of 1.7%.
Essentially that is a a flat economy.
Companies are not expanding because the economy simply does not support it plus the threat of Obamacare and new taxes on horizon is forcing business to hunker down and keep their capital in the bank.
Blaming Bush?
Now there goes your credibility right into the crapper.
Obama is in the 6th year of his administration. I think the time for excuses is over. This is Obama's watch. Time for you Obama loyalists to suck it up and accept responsibility.

What about the five quarters of NEGATIVE GDP before Obama took office?

 

[Pogo]

Warren Buffet.

Doesn't matter anyway; the claim was "she claimed minority status at Harvard".

When that was challenged the goalposts were moved (by a second poster) to "she's not part Cherokee".

When that was challenged the poster moved the goalposts again to "she's a fraud".

When that was challenged the reasoning given was "she's wealthy and can't crusade for the poor". Which does not follow.

That poster ran away too. You're the third clown trying to run with this ball. Who are you going to lateral to?

Where's the evidence?
And where are the first two posters who ran away?

It comes down to this: the three of you are dealing in bullshit. When challenged all you can do is change the charge, move the goalposts, toss non sequiturs and run away.

Yeah, I knew that name would pop up. He paid lip service.
Moving the goal posts. Yep. An excuse you libs use when you lose the debate.
Running away...Gotta love that one.
It just makes you lib's skin crawl when you cannot get people to entertain your petty rants.
No. It's called no longer wish to discuss because all that has needed ot be said, has been said,.
You people argue just to argue.

Yuh huh.
You got your answer --- where is my answer to 211?
Where's Rightwinger's answer to 218?
Where's my answer to 226?
Where's your link to "She only revealed this when the pre election polls showed the race tightening"?

Oh that's right. You ran away.

Hypocrite.

Well, let's drop in and see who's finally linked their empty claims from yesterday....


Hmm. Nothing.

Well, can't say I'm surprised.

 

[rightwinger]

Name some people who are wealthy and advocate higher taxes on themselves...
But wait....There is more.
Name the ones NOT using every possible loophole in the tax code to keep as much from Uncle Sam as possible.
Also, please explain the difference between a rich person and a rich person.
You people with this wealth thing are really digging a hole for yourselves.
No need to explain. You know your hypocrisy in this area.

Everybody plays by the same rules.......John Kerry, Bill Clinton even Mitt Romney

Liberal politicians are trying to change those rules for EVERYONE including themselves

Wealthy conservatives are trying to change the rules so that the poor receive less....damned 47%

That is the difference

That's a horseshit response. You know God damned well you separate wealthy democrats and liberals and make excuses for them.

Of course I do

The liberal wealthy are willing to sacrifice their own wealth for the good of he country. Conservative wealthy want to take it out on the poor

 

[Rocko]

There is a difference between those who are wealthy and advocate higher tax rates on themselves and those who are wealthy and advocate cuts in programs for the poor

Name some people who are wealthy and advocate higher taxes on themselves...

Warren Buffet.

Doesn't matter anyway; the claim was "she claimed minority status at Harvard".

When that was challenged the goalposts were moved (by a second poster) to "she's not part Cherokee".

When that was challenged the poster moved the goalposts again to "she's a fraud".

When that was challenged the reasoning given was "she's wealthy and can't crusade for the poor". Which does not follow.

That poster ran away too. You're the third clown trying to run with this ball. Who are you going to lateral to?

Where's the evidence?
And where are the first two posters who ran away?

It comes down to this: the three of you are dealing in bullshit. When challenged all you can do is change the charge, move the goalposts, toss non sequiturs and run away.

I never said she can't crusade for the poor because she's wealthy. You said I that. I was saying she can't be trusted as a crusader for the poor because she's not even honest about being rich herself. And I didn't run away from anything.

 

[Rocko]

But keep attacking that straw man.

 

[Rocko]

[MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]