Senator Warren (aka Lie-awatha) not running for POTUS

[Jim in CT]

She no want-um teepee of great white chief?

Princess Spreding Bull to adoring crowd: Yes, I lied about my heritage to advance my career. I don't apologoze for it, in fact, you're going to like it and vote for me.

Crowd: Yaaaaaay!

We need to demand a bit more, this goes for both parties...

[Jackbass]

I don't care who is trotted out in the next election republican or democrat the winner has been chosen already and is currently residing in the pocket of many.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

As a Native American I'm offended by your off color characterization of my people.

-spence

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

As a Native American I'm offended by your off color characterization of my people.

-spence

Don't take this the wrong way, Spence.....But you may qualify as an off color characterization of your own people.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

As a Native American I'm offended by your off color characterization of my people.

-spence

HOW!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

As a Native American I'm offended by your off color characterization of my people.

-spence

Are you offended by the fact that she lied in order to claim that she deserves the same benefits that your people rightfully deserve?

In all seriousless, I am sorry if you were offended. If she hadn't lied (which should also offend you), I would have had nothing to comment on...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

As a Native American I'm offended by your off color characterization of my people.

-spence

So you are offended by Jim's opening? Or her lying? Or both?

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Don't take this the wrong way, Spence.....But you may qualify as an off color characterization of your own people.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

So you are offended by Jim's opening? Or her lying? Or both?

John she didn't lie, she mis-spoke. Like our next President, when she claimed to have come under sniper fire while traveling overseas. Or maybe I just took Warren's claims "out of context". But she didn't lie...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Are you offended by the fact that she lied in order to claim that she deserves the same benefits that your people rightfully deserve?

In all seriousless, I am sorry if you were offended. If she hadn't lied (which should also offend you), I would have had nothing to comment on...

I'm not convinced she's lied and I don't believe you could prove it if you had to.

A lot of people have Native American ancestry and aren't official tribal members. To become a member of the Cherokee Tribe (as Warren claimed) I had to show evidence tracing my bloodline back to the original Dawes Rolls. Doing so doesn't get you a lot beyond tribal voting rights as the Cherokee don't have a minimum blood threshold...Both my kids are in process right now, it's not a quick thing. She appears to have believed she had Native American blood and other family members have said the same thing. If she genuinely believed this -- regardless if it's right or wrong -- how can you say she lied?

Why this would compel her to indicate minority status on a school directory I don't know, perhaps she just thought it was a neat thing and wanted to express it. More importantly though, from everything I've ever read she never gained any benefit from doing so and she was highly qualified for every position she achieved.

Remember the big reason this story was floated in the first place was because Scott Brown couldn't match her on the issues...it was all he had.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not convinced she's lied and I don't believe you could prove it if you had to.

A lot of people have Native American ancestry and aren't official tribal members. To become a member of the Cherokee Tribe (as Warren claimed) I had to show evidence tracing my bloodline back to the original Dawes Rolls. Doing so doesn't get you a lot beyond tribal voting rights as the Cherokee don't have a minimum blood threshold...Both my kids are in process right now, it's not a quick thing. She appears to have believed she had Native American blood and other family members have said the same thing. If she genuinely believed this -- regardless if it's right or wrong -- how can you say she lied?

Why this would compel her to indicate minority status on a school directory I don't know, perhaps she just thought it was a neat thing and wanted to express it. More importantly though, from everything I've ever read she never gained any benefit from doing so and she was highly qualified for every position she achieved.

Remember the big reason this story was floated in the first place was because Scott Brown couldn't match her on the issues...it was all he had.

-spence

Would you be offended if I asked why you and your children are going through the process of legitimizing your claim as a Native American ? Is it just cool ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Would you be offended if I asked why you and your children are going through the process of legitimizing your claim as a Native American ? Is it just cool ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would I be offended? My father is into genealogy and likes to record the family heritage. Have a distant cousin that was running for tribal chief. It is cool...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not convinced she's lied and I don't believe you could prove it if you had to.

A lot of people have Native American ancestry and aren't official tribal members. To become a member of the Cherokee Tribe (as Warren claimed) I had to show evidence tracing my bloodline back to the original Dawes Rolls. Doing so doesn't get you a lot beyond tribal voting rights as the Cherokee don't have a minimum blood threshold...Both my kids are in process right now, it's not a quick thing. She appears to have believed she had Native American blood and other family members have said the same thing. If she genuinely believed this -- regardless if it's right or wrong -- how can you say she lied?

Why this would compel her to indicate minority status on a school directory I don't know, perhaps she just thought it was a neat thing and wanted to express it. More importantly though, from everything I've ever read she never gained any benefit from doing so and she was highly qualified for every position she achieved.

Remember the big reason this story was floated in the first place was because Scott Brown couldn't match her on the issues...it was all he had.

-spence

"I'm not convinced she's lied "

Shocker. Somehow, you aren't convinced that Hilary lied about the sniper attack, despit the video footage of what actuallyhappened. To you, no prominent politician with a (D) after their name can be a liar.

"She appears to have believed she had Native American blood "

How could you POSSIBLY know what she actually believed? How coudl you know that she didn't just check that box to get the job she wanted?

Using your "logic", I can say that Gov Christie's people really thought they were conducting a traffic study when they snarled traffic on the bridge.

"she was highly qualified for every position she achieved. "

So was justice Bork. In the real world, poitical considerations sometime mean a great deal. Is that news to you?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How could you POSSIBLY know what she actually believed? How coudl you know that she didn't just check that box to get the job she wanted?

Well, that's what she said. As I indicated, I don't see any evidence she checked a box to get any job nor did she receive any special favors.

So was justice Bork. In the real world, poitical considerations sometime mean a great deal. Is that news to you?

Irrelevant.

-spence

[Raven]

she needs a scar on her nose
shelayinhayallday

[Piscator]

What's the big deal anyway...didn't the Native Americans come accross from Asia/Russia through Alaska like 20,000 years ago?

So technically Warren is part Commie...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

If there was no gain she wouldn't have done it. My guess is they had to round out the profile of the U had money to hire a minority professor. A solid candidate for a position at the school Warren was slid into the role of Cherokee and was coached to do so. The only person or people it matters to are Those who are in fact minority and were not hired so lily white Warren could come in with her pseudo native lineage
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

There is a lot of hypocracy and questionable dealings in her and her husbands past .
Not a nice person even if she has devoted apologist and followers . I've met her in a parking spot in Cambridge that she felt she owned ..she believes she's better then others . Btw I was in the right and she went ballistic on the poor police officer who told her to move
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

I've met her in a parking spot in Cambridge that she felt she owned ..Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Her people probably lived in that spot, weaving baskets and hunting buffalo and smoke-um peace pipe, before your people showed up.

She is a miserable Marxist shrew. I wish she was running...

[Jim in CT]

Fauxcohontas is also on a rant lately about how unfair it is that college students have to carry so much debt. This, coming from a blowhard who pulled down $430k a year while teaching at Harvard. And she feels in no way responsible for the debt her students have to carry.

These people have no shame, and their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

blowhard

These people have no shame I would ask the same thing about you, and their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

NM

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

NM

Actually, I am full of shame. To quote George Costanza, who thought he was dying and Jerry asked him to at least die with dignity..."I lived my whole life in shame, why should I die with dignity!"

George Costanza, interestingky enough, was not as big a liar as Mizz Warren, aka Princess Spreading Bull...

[PaulS]

You make some good points but lose me when you start going off like that. She said she was told her whole life she was part Indian.

Let's talk about Mr Bundy. That was a good one.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

She said she was told her whole life she was part Indian.

.

She selected "white" on previous job applications. And when asked why her current employer had her listed as Native American, she did not say "because I am a Native American, so that's what I told them." What she responded was "I don't know why they think I'm Native American". When the reporter showed her the application she filled out, where she checked off Native American, THAT'S when she said "oh yes, I told them that, but it's true so no worries."

Come on, Paul. I think you know what happened here. I don't care about her political affiliation. We all know this doesn't pass the common sense test.

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
So it's OK for your people to discriminate?

Originally Posted by spence

I'd think of it as more of a settlement than discrimination. It's legal...

-spence

So, in your opinion, certain degrees of discrimination are acceptable. If it is "more" of something other than discrimination, then the discrimination doesn't count. Notwithstanding that it is usually, in the eyes of the accused discriminator, more of something else, such as religious belief for instance, than discrimination. And yet, for the "good" of society in general, courts keep striking down that "more of something else" in favor of it just being discrimination. But, as it is your people who are discriminating in this case, I can see how you would be good with it.

That "settlement" thing is ominous. Is that in perpetuity? Are your people forever "legally" allowed to discriminate? Is it settled that those with traces of your people's blood will be allowed from now on to legally to discriminate? I can see why it would be "cool," as you put it, to be one of your people.

Concerning your "its legal ...". . . anti-discrimination "laws" are generally discriminatory. They discriminate against the personal proclivities of one party (even if they are "more" of something else) in favor of those of another party. Of course, such laws are, as you say, "more of a settlement than discrimination." They're legal . . .

If their is a problem with this sort of mixed legality, it is that there is no concrete principle behind the "laws." They are more opinion which shifts depending on the "justice" du jour. If your "people" benefit . . . hooray. If not, you should just go away.

Another problem is that as a country we are divided into separate opposing "people" rather than one comprised of unique individuals.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
So it's OK for your people to discriminate?




So, in your opinion, certain degrees of discrimination are acceptable. If it is "more" of something other than discrimination, then the discrimination doesn't count. Notwithstanding that it is usually, in the eyes of the accused discriminator, more of something else, such as religious belief for instance, than discrimination. And yet, for the "good" of society in general, courts keep striking down that "more of something else" in favor of it just being discrimination. But, as it is your people who are discriminating in this case, I can see how you would be good with it.

That "settlement" thing is ominous. Is that in perpetuity? Are your people forever "legally" allowed to discriminate? Is it settled that those with traces of your people's blood will be allowed from now on to legally to discriminate? I can see why it would be "cool," as you put it, to be one of your people.

Concerning your "its legal ...". . . anti-discrimination "laws" are generally discriminatory. They discriminate against the personal proclivities of one party (even if they are "more" of something else) in favor of those of another party. Of course, such laws are, as you say, "more of a settlement than discrimination." They're legal . . .

If their is a problem with this sort of mixed legality, it is that there is no concrete principle behind the "laws." They are more opinion which shifts depending on the "justice" du jour. If your "people" benefit . . . hooray. If not, you should just go away.

Another problem is that as a country we are divided into separate opposing "people" rather than one comprised of unique individuals.

Now you got it. When Spence doesn't sympathize with whomever is on the receiving end, it's discrimination. When Spence does sympathize with whomever is on the receiving end, it's not discrimination, but rather, a "settlement."

Do you have it now, Detbuch? Does it make sense...

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, in your opinion, certain degrees of discrimination are acceptable. If it is "more" of something other than discrimination, then the discrimination doesn't count. Notwithstanding that it is usually, in the eyes of the accused discriminator, more of something else, such as religious belief for instance, than discrimination. And yet, for the "good" of society in general, courts keep striking down that "more of something else" in favor of it just being discrimination. But, as it is your people who are discriminating in this case, I can see how you would be good with it.

That "settlement" thing is ominous. Is that in perpetuity? Are your people forever "legally" allowed to discriminate? Is it settled that those with traces of your people's blood will be allowed from now on to legally to discriminate? I can see why it would be "cool," as you put it, to be one of your people.

Concerning your "its legal ...". . . anti-discrimination "laws" are generally discriminatory. They discriminate against the personal proclivities of one party (even if they are "more" of something else) in favor of those of another party. Of course, such laws are, as you say, "more of a settlement than discrimination." They're legal . . .

If their is a problem with this sort of mixed legality, it is that there is no concrete principle behind the "laws." They are more opinion which shifts depending on the "justice" du jour. If your "people" benefit . . . hooray. If not, you should just go away.

Another problem is that as a country we are divided into separate opposing "people" rather than one comprised of unique individuals.

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

Today we call it "affordable housing"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

Originally Posted by spence

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

No. I did not forget that. One of the most racist, brutal, and illegal acts committed by the U.S. Federal government was Andrew Jackson's refusal to follow the Supreme Court's opinion against the removal of the Indians from their homeland. The "Trail of Tears," as well as many other episodes and actions, We're dark marks in American history.

I have a spiritual harmony with what little I think I know about a small portion of pre-white native American culture. Within that limited spiritual sphere . . . much, I admit, is probably over romanticized . . . within it there is an almost overwhelming sympathy in me for an Indian way of life that was far more in harmony with the land and nature than the way we live today.

I would like a return to some portion of that way. And to infuse it with a return to a constitutional form of government. One, by the way, which may also have a native American contribution through the Iroquois Nation system's influence on the formation of the Constitution.

But that has little to do with discrimination. In my opinion, Indians have every right to discriminate in who they hire, or to whom they sell, or with whom they associate. I think African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans, also have those rights. And when government decides with whom and how we associate, and do business with, outside the restriction of anyone denying another those same rights, it is as dictatorial, unconstitutional, unethical, and immoral, as resettlement of Indians from their home to reservations. And it is as destructive to the human spirit in general as it was to the native American spirit. I don't make that as a material comparison, but as a political, philosophical, and ideological one.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No. I did not forget that. One of the most racist, brutal, and illegal acts committed by the U.S. Federal government was Andrew Jackson's refusal to follow the Supreme Court's opinion against the removal of the Indians from their homeland. The "Trail of Tears," as well as many other episodes and actions, We're dark marks in American history.

Agree.

I have a spiritual harmony with what little I think I know about a small portion of pre-white native American culture. Within that limited spiritual sphere . . . much, I admit, is probably over romanticized . . . within it there is an almost overwhelming sympathy in me for an Indian way of life that was far more in harmony with the land and nature than the way we live today.

Yes, and no WI-FI either.

I would like a return to some portion of that way. And to infuse it with a return to a constitutional form of government. One, by the way, which may also have a native American contribution through the Iroquois Nation system's influence on the formation of the Constitution.

It begs the question if sometimes the original "constitutional form of government" hasn't been over romanticized as well. If I remember correctly it didn't last all that long...

But that has little to do with discrimination. In my opinion, Indians have every right to discriminate in who they hire, or to whom they sell, or with whom they associate. I think African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans, also have those rights. And when government decides with whom and how we associate, and do business with, outside the restriction of anyone denying another those same rights, it is as dictatorial, unconstitutional, unethical, and immoral, as resettlement of Indians from their home to reservations. And it is as destructive to the human spirit in general as it was to the native American spirit. I don't make that as a material comparison, but as a political, philosophical, and ideological one.

Good you recognized that. In theory piece of paper is the same as a pizza, from a certain perspective...

I think the Native American situation is a bit different in that there's some level of sovereignty still in effect. I have the understanding that tribes have some latitude under Federal law to protect the economic interests of the tribe. At this point I'm not sure how it's discrimination rather than a matter of internal affairs.

-spence

[spence]

Great article in CNN today.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

-spence