What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

I really like Elizabeth Warren (1 Viewer)

Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...
I don't get this at all. Should she be living in the ghetto to be able to advocate liberal policies?
No...all I am saying is that while she claims to represent the little guy she has lied to advance her career, worked about ten hours a week and got paid big money and now lives in a very wealthy neighborhood...she can help the little guy all she can (and that's a good thing) but the story she has tried to potray about herself is a joke...
 
Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...
Sounds like a female Mitt Romney. Must be something about that state.
The difference is Mitt didn't pretend to be a Mormon to get ahead...
He did pretend to be a lot of other things though. Does it matter WHAT they were pretending to be or that they were pretending in the first place?? The WHAT seems like a dubious, political hackish path to go down IMO.
Pretending or lying? Big difference...
 
Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...
Sounds like a female Mitt Romney. Must be something about that state.
The difference is Mitt didn't pretend to be a Mormon to get ahead...
He did pretend to be a lot of other things though. Does it matter WHAT they were pretending to be or that they were pretending in the first place?? The WHAT seems like a dubious, political hackish path to go down IMO.
Pretending or lying? Big difference...
To you perhaps. Pretending is a form of lying to a lot of us. For me, it's really not different at all.
 
I suspect that being the son of a governor helped Mitt WAY more than allegedly being 1/32 Cherokee helped Warren. Yet I think you would have a tough time getting Mitt to acknowledge that.
You're probably right but I don't think Mitt ever lied about being the son of a Governor though...
Well, you guys seem to be slippery about whether there was actual "lying." I agree that if Warren completely made the whole thing up it would be pretty damning. But that seems incredibly unlikely to me. Her mom told her she was part Cherokee and she believed it. That doesn't really seem so terrible.
 
I suspect that being the son of a governor helped Mitt WAY more than allegedly being 1/32 Cherokee helped Warren. Yet I think you would have a tough time getting Mitt to acknowledge that.
You're probably right but I don't think Mitt ever lied about being the son of a Governor though...
Well, you guys seem to be slippery about whether there was actual "lying." I agree that if Warren completely made the whole thing up it would be pretty damning. But that seems incredibly unlikely to me. Her mom told her she was part Cherokee and she believed it. That doesn't really seem so terrible.
I can understand going to do due diligence if you're going to public office. I can't help but wonder if she did. If she did and learned the truth and kept quiet, it's a lie. If she didn't do it, that's on her and is kinda dumb. My :2cents:
 
I suspect that being the son of a governor helped Mitt WAY more than allegedly being 1/32 Cherokee helped Warren. Yet I think you would have a tough time getting Mitt to acknowledge that.
You're probably right but I don't think Mitt ever lied about being the son of a Governor though...
Well, you guys seem to be slippery about whether there was actual "lying." I agree that if Warren completely made the whole thing up it would be pretty damning. But that seems incredibly unlikely to me. Her mom told her she was part Cherokee and she believed it. That doesn't really seem so terrible.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/recipe_for_trouble_FjE51f7qZJ9SUIZmF6pX1H
 
Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...As for Scott Brown his win a few years ago may have actually hurt the GOP in Mass...the Bay State is a one-party state and it is amazing how many creeps, felons and idiots not only get elected but barely have to break a sweat to do so (I mean John Tierney...seriously?)...the GOP in Mass is closer to being a college club than a viable organization...Brown's win was the political equivalent of "The Miracle on Ice"...while it was a great story it also woke up the left and has made sure they will not take another race for granted...the GOP has a huge hill to climb and outside of Brown running for Governor the immediate future looks very bleak to end one-party rule...
I don't get this post at all. It's like you just ignored the entire discussion thus far. You went back to the original talking point about how she made up her ancestry for personal gain, even though that's all been thoroughly debunked over the course of this thread.
 
Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...As for Scott Brown his win a few years ago may have actually hurt the GOP in Mass...the Bay State is a one-party state and it is amazing how many creeps, felons and idiots not only get elected but barely have to break a sweat to do so (I mean John Tierney...seriously?)...the GOP in Mass is closer to being a college club than a viable organization...Brown's win was the political equivalent of "The Miracle on Ice"...while it was a great story it also woke up the left and has made sure they will not take another race for granted...the GOP has a huge hill to climb and outside of Brown running for Governor the immediate future looks very bleak to end one-party rule...
I don't get this post at all. It's like you just ignored the entire discussion thus far. You went back to the original talking point about how she made up her ancestry for personal gain, even though that's all been thoroughly debunked over the course of this thread.
It's never been debunked...
 
I suspect that being the son of a governor helped Mitt WAY more than allegedly being 1/32 Cherokee helped Warren. Yet I think you would have a tough time getting Mitt to acknowledge that.
You're probably right but I don't think Mitt ever lied about being the son of a Governor though...
Well, you guys seem to be slippery about whether there was actual "lying." I agree that if Warren completely made the whole thing up it would be pretty damning. But that seems incredibly unlikely to me. Her mom told her she was part Cherokee and she believed it. That doesn't really seem so terrible.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/recipe_for_trouble_FjE51f7qZJ9SUIZmF6pX1H
This is an opinion column from a conservative in a conservative publication that was written a few weeks after the story broke. The Washington Post fact checker piece linked earlier gives a much fuller picture of the whole story.
 
According to a genealogist that did our family tree my great,great grandmother on my fathers side was Cherokee. If true that gives me at least as much Cherokee ancestry as many current tribal elders. And as pointed out if Warrens claims are accurate she has the same amount of Cherokee blood as the current chief. So if it's good enough to get to be chief seems to be enough to claim.
Claiming ancestry for Native Americans is quite different than claiming black (say) ancestry. There are strict rules for proof.Here is how you register as a member of the Cherokee Tribe. Here is another link. You are right, if Warren can fill out one of these forms, and have it accepted and she can become an enrolled member of the Tribe, than she (and you) should by all means claim ancestry.

But if she didn't do that, than no, she did not do as much as the current chief.
I didn't say we did as much I said we had as much ancestry. FWIW I was told I had missed some deadline to put in a an official claim as my heritage is allegedly with the Cherokee still here in NC and you had to apply by some date several years ago.
 
Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...As for Scott Brown his win a few years ago may have actually hurt the GOP in Mass...the Bay State is a one-party state and it is amazing how many creeps, felons and idiots not only get elected but barely have to break a sweat to do so (I mean John Tierney...seriously?)...the GOP in Mass is closer to being a college club than a viable organization...Brown's win was the political equivalent of "The Miracle on Ice"...while it was a great story it also woke up the left and has made sure they will not take another race for granted...the GOP has a huge hill to climb and outside of Brown running for Governor the immediate future looks very bleak to end one-party rule...
I don't get this post at all. It's like you just ignored the entire discussion thus far. You went back to the original talking point about how she made up her ancestry for personal gain, even though that's all been thoroughly debunked over the course of this thread.
It's never been debunked...
Of course it has. Did you miss the Washington Post article linked earlier?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...As for Scott Brown his win a few years ago may have actually hurt the GOP in Mass...the Bay State is a one-party state and it is amazing how many creeps, felons and idiots not only get elected but barely have to break a sweat to do so (I mean John Tierney...seriously?)...the GOP in Mass is closer to being a college club than a viable organization...Brown's win was the political equivalent of "The Miracle on Ice"...while it was a great story it also woke up the left and has made sure they will not take another race for granted...the GOP has a huge hill to climb and outside of Brown running for Governor the immediate future looks very bleak to end one-party rule...
I don't get this post at all. It's like you just ignored the entire discussion thus far. You went back to the original talking point about how she made up her ancestry for personal gain, even though that's all been thoroughly debunked over the course of this thread.
It's never been debunked...
Nor proven...at best "we don't know" is the honest answer.
 
I suspect that being the son of a governor helped Mitt WAY more than allegedly being 1/32 Cherokee helped Warren. Yet I think you would have a tough time getting Mitt to acknowledge that.
You're probably right but I don't think Mitt ever lied about being the son of a Governor though...
Well, you guys seem to be slippery about whether there was actual "lying." I agree that if Warren completely made the whole thing up it would be pretty damning. But that seems incredibly unlikely to me. Her mom told her she was part Cherokee and she believed it. That doesn't really seem so terrible.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/recipe_for_trouble_FjE51f7qZJ9SUIZmF6pX1H
This is an opinion column from a conservative in a conservative publication that was written a few weeks after the story broke. The Washington Post fact checker piece linked earlier gives a much fuller picture of the whole story.
A liberal news outlet v. a conservative writer...ok she's, a Cherokee and this also had nothing to do with her career-advancement...
 
A liberal news outlet v. a conservative writer...ok she's, a Cherokee and this also had nothing to do with her career-advancement...
Leaving aside the biases. I don't see how any fact presented in the article you linked to supports the position that Warren "lied" about her heritage at all.
 
I suspect that being the son of a governor helped Mitt WAY more than allegedly being 1/32 Cherokee helped Warren. Yet I think you would have a tough time getting Mitt to acknowledge that.
You're probably right but I don't think Mitt ever lied about being the son of a Governor though...
Well, you guys seem to be slippery about whether there was actual "lying." I agree that if Warren completely made the whole thing up it would be pretty damning. But that seems incredibly unlikely to me. Her mom told her she was part Cherokee and she believed it. That doesn't really seem so terrible.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/recipe_for_trouble_FjE51f7qZJ9SUIZmF6pX1H
This is an opinion column from a conservative in a conservative publication that was written a few weeks after the story broke. The Washington Post fact checker piece linked earlier gives a much fuller picture of the whole story.
A liberal news outlet v. a conservative writer...ok she's, a Cherokee and this also had nothing to do with her career-advancement...
All you need to do is prove the fact checker wrong and show where she "checked the box" to get ahead. Same challenge I made to Jewell prove she used it to get ahead. Prove the WaPo fact checker wrong. Her opponent spent weeks trying to find proof but he, and all his backers, failed to do so. Good luck.
 
A liberal news outlet v. a conservative writer...ok she's, a Cherokee and this also had nothing to do with her career-advancement...
:shrug: The Washington Post thing came out months after Howie Carr's op-ed. It had the benefit of having a lot more relevant information. Citing to the Carr piece now doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
 
it's kind of cheesy to use it as an extra career boost contrary to the intent of affirmative action which it appears she may have.
Totally agree with this Ramsey. Just don't think you throw out her 20 years work for that.And her Qs so far on the Banking Committee have been A++.
:lmao: Who said I was throwing out her work or her credentials? Please point to where I did that.

Was my first post in this thread not in agreement with Warren's banking position in the OP.
Sorry Jewell, I don't think that's even your quote. I bungled things when I trimmed it down.As for the 20 years thing, I wasn't singling anyone in particular out (including Ramsey). But it does seem like some people are doing that when they say she was elected in spite of this incredible character flaw.
:thumbup: No probs, and I like that Warren is challenging the way most politicians think of banking improprieties.

 
Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...As for Scott Brown his win a few years ago may have actually hurt the GOP in Mass...the Bay State is a one-party state and it is amazing how many creeps, felons and idiots not only get elected but barely have to break a sweat to do so (I mean John Tierney...seriously?)...the GOP in Mass is closer to being a college club than a viable organization...Brown's win was the political equivalent of "The Miracle on Ice"...while it was a great story it also woke up the left and has made sure they will not take another race for granted...the GOP has a huge hill to climb and outside of Brown running for Governor the immediate future looks very bleak to end one-party rule...
I don't get this post at all. It's like you just ignored the entire discussion thus far. You went back to the original talking point about how she made up her ancestry for personal gain, even though that's all been thoroughly debunked over the course of this thread.
It's never been debunked...
Nor proven...at best "we don't know" is the honest answer.
In any event, a moot point as it turned out to be a non-issue as far as most voters were concerned.
 
You dismiss a fact chck article from the Washington Post as from a "liberal news outlet", yet offer up a conservative op-Ed piece as evidence?

This is a good example of my theory that so many conservatives live in their own bubble- they reject facts in favor of what they choose to hear from their own sources. No wonder so many were all but certain Obama would lose the election. Anyone who claimed otherwise was, after all, from a "liberal news outlet".

 
You dismiss a fact chck article from the Washington Post as from a "liberal news outlet", yet offer up a conservative op-Ed piece as evidence?

This is a good example of my theory that so many conservatives live in their own bubble- they reject facts in favor of what they choose to hear from their own sources. No wonder so many were all but certain Obama would lose the election. Anyone who claimed otherwise was, after all, from a "liberal news outlet".
Or believed what that "One Hit Wonder" Nate Silver was saying. :hophead:
 
You dismiss a fact chck article from the Washington Post as from a "liberal news outlet", yet offer up a conservative op-Ed piece as evidence?

This is a good example of my theory that so many conservatives live in their own bubble- they reject facts in favor of what they choose to hear from their own sources. No wonder so many were all but certain Obama would lose the election. Anyone who claimed otherwise was, after all, from a "liberal news outlet".
Or believed what that "One Hit Wonder" Nate Silver was saying. :hophead:
But again, he was dismissed by Rush Limbaugh and many other conservatives because he worked for the New York Times- in their eyes, a disreputable source.
 
Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...As for Scott Brown his win a few years ago may have actually hurt the GOP in Mass...the Bay State is a one-party state and it is amazing how many creeps, felons and idiots not only get elected but barely have to break a sweat to do so (I mean John Tierney...seriously?)...the GOP in Mass is closer to being a college club than a viable organization...Brown's win was the political equivalent of "The Miracle on Ice"...while it was a great story it also woke up the left and has made sure they will not take another race for granted...the GOP has a huge hill to climb and outside of Brown running for Governor the immediate future looks very bleak to end one-party rule...
I don't get this post at all. It's like you just ignored the entire discussion thus far. You went back to the original talking point about how she made up her ancestry for personal gain, even though that's all been thoroughly debunked over the course of this thread.
It's never been debunked...
Nor proven...at best "we don't know" is the honest answer.
In any event, a moot point as it turned out to be a non-issue as far as most voters were concerned.
Agreed...it seems that political motivation is skewing a lot of the "outrage" around this. Personally, I don't care if she checked the box or not as it doesn't really seem to have anything to do with her ability. If we put ourselves in a position of judging these politicians on their character, they all lose and it's not close.
 
my theory that so many conservatives live in their own bubble
Oh come on
When no conservative posting here and many elected Republicans weren't aware that Obama had offered over a year ago to link Soc Sec to a new measure of CPI you have to wonder.Especially when there are Republicans in Congress this week who are publicly citing Obama's willingness to compromise on Chained CPI as some sort of 'new' proof that he's changed and is now serious about getting a deal done. :wall:
 
You dismiss a fact chck article from the Washington Post as from a "liberal news outlet", yet offer up a conservative op-Ed piece as evidence? This is a good example of my theory that so many conservatives live in their own bubble- they reject facts in favor of what they choose to hear from their own sources. No wonder so many were all but certain Obama would lose the election. Anyone who claimed otherwise was, after all, from a "liberal news outlet".
Yeah...this isn't limited to conservatives. No reason to single them out.
 
EW argued a summary judgment motion in my judge's court when I was clerking almost 20 years ago. It was a very complex motion that had been through several rounds of briefing over a year or so, probably 5 or 6 boxes of briefs and exhibits in my office. She was a law prof at the time, brought in as a special counsel by a large bank just to argue this one motion hearing. I recall being very excited because she had written the book on the subject matter I had used in law school (bankruptcy) so it was a kind of a celebrity moment in an extremely geeky way. She delivered in a huge way - took the podium and walked us through a very complex argument step by step over an hour or so. It was so impressive for me at that stage of my career. Strangely, I don't recall whether her client won or lost the motion.

 
You dismiss a fact chck article from the Washington Post as from a "liberal news outlet", yet offer up a conservative op-Ed piece as evidence? This is a good example of my theory that so many conservatives live in their own bubble- they reject facts in favor of what they choose to hear from their own sources. No wonder so many were all but certain Obama would lose the election. Anyone who claimed otherwise was, after all, from a "liberal news outlet".
Yeah...this isn't limited to conservatives. No reason to single them out.
I think there is a reason. I think conservatives in recent years are much more guilty of this than liberals. That is my firm impression.
 
She was a law prof at the time, brought in as a special counsel by a large bank just to argue this one motion hearing. I recall being very excited because she had written the book on the subject matter I had used in law school (bankruptcy) so it was a kind of a celebrity moment in an extremely geeky way.
:nerd:
 
You dismiss a fact chck article from the Washington Post as from a "liberal news outlet", yet offer up a conservative op-Ed piece as evidence? This is a good example of my theory that so many conservatives live in their own bubble- they reject facts in favor of what they choose to hear from their own sources. No wonder so many were all but certain Obama would lose the election. Anyone who claimed otherwise was, after all, from a "liberal news outlet".
Yeah...this isn't limited to conservatives. No reason to single them out.
I think there is a reason. I think conservatives in recent years are much more guilty of this than liberals. That is my firm impression.
It's cyclical. We really don't know what the Dems are thinking at the moment. Everyone's caught up in the crazy of the right. This was much different while Bush was in office and the left was going off the deep end. In the end, they are very similar though I do acknowledge you can take points in time and say "see....X is worse than Y".
 
She was a law prof at the time, brought in as a special counsel by a large bank just to argue this one motion hearing. I recall being very excited because she had written the book on the subject matter I had used in law school (bankruptcy) so it was a kind of a celebrity moment in an extremely geeky way.
:nerd:
America's Next Top Bankruptcy Lawyer sounds like the worst reality show concept of all time."Jack, you've won the position of Household Trustee for the next week."
 
my theory that so many conservatives live in their own bubble
Oh come on
When no conservative posting here and many elected Republicans weren't aware that Obama had offered over a year ago to link Soc Sec to a new measure of CPI you have to wonder.Especially when there are Republicans in Congress this week who are publicly citing Obama's willingness to compromise on Chained CPI as some sort of 'new' proof that he's changed and is now serious about getting a deal done. :wall:
I was talking about him calling it his theory.
 
my theory that so many conservatives live in their own bubble
Oh come on
When no conservative posting here and many elected Republicans weren't aware that Obama had offered over a year ago to link Soc Sec to a new measure of CPI you have to wonder.Especially when there are Republicans in Congress this week who are publicly citing Obama's willingness to compromise on Chained CPI as some sort of 'new' proof that he's changed and is now serious about getting a deal done. :wall:
I was talking about him calling it his theory.
Good point. Of course it isn't mine.
 
She was a law prof at the time, brought in as a special counsel by a large bank just to argue this one motion hearing. I recall being very excited because she had written the book on the subject matter I had used in law school (bankruptcy) so it was a kind of a celebrity moment in an extremely geeky way.
:nerd:
America's Next Top Bankruptcy Lawyer sounds like the worst reality show concept of all time."Jack, you've won the position of Household Trustee for the next week."
Might be good if there was green slime involved.
 
Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...
I don't get this at all. Should she be living in the ghetto to be able to advocate liberal policies?
No, but she shouldn't be claiming humble roots in order to gain liberal street cred either.
 
Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...
Sounds like a female Mitt Romney. Must be something about that state.
The difference is Mitt didn't pretend to be a Mormon to get ahead...
I suspect that being the son of a governor helped Mitt WAY more than allegedly being 1/32 Cherokee helped Warren. Yet I think you would have a tough time getting Mitt to acknowledge that.
You're probably right but I don't think Mitt ever lied about being the son of a Governor though...
Since when is Mitt Romney the standard for integrity or anything else?In addition, this is about the liberal street cred that Warren was pimping for. That doesn't even have anything to do with Romney.

 
Warren can go on to be the best Senator in US history (and I actually like her attacking these banking guys) but there is little doubt she was a complete fraud in this past campaign...she made up her ancestry claim and looked like a complete fool when she got pressed on it...she also tried to potray herself as a kid who grew up in a tough situation and that was proven false...there were also other issues involving her flipping Real Estate and teaching only one-class while making big money at Harvard...that's fine except those were the exact type of situations she was attacking in the campaign as she claimed to represent the "little guy"...she lives in a very wealthy section of "the People's Republic" of Cambridge and is a legit limousine liberal...like many politicians (of either party) she is the perfect example of someone who practices a do as I say and not as I do attitude...
I don't get this at all. Should she be living in the ghetto to be able to advocate liberal policies?
No, but she shouldn't be claiming humble roots in order to gain liberal street cred either.
I don't think she said in her Senate campaign that she was currently facing any sort of financial hardship. I thought her roots actually were pretty humble.
 
I think we would be much better off if we worried less about where a person comes from (or doesn't) and more about what they are doing in the offices they hold today.

In the case of Elizabeth Warren, her ancestry and pre-Senatorial background are absolutely meaningless to me. I'm a big fan of the way she is trying to hold corporate banks accountable to the same civil and criminal standards as individual citizens and I don't care if she is hugely wealthy or had easy jobs in the past.

In the case of Barack Obama, his ancestry is and pre-Presidential background are absolutely meaningless to me. I'm not a big fan of the way he is governing like a moderate Republican and I don't care that he is perceived as more liberal because he is black or lots of people call him a socialist.

 
Regarding the Cherokee thing, didn't the same thing happen with Shania Twain? She marketed herself as being part Native American, but it turns out that her percentage, going by ancestry, was zero?

Also, why has nobody yet linked to

? I didn't see the rest of Bernanke's testimony, but I read that the questions from the other senators on the committee were, on the whole, kind of stupid. It's nice to have Warren there.
 
Regarding the Cherokee thing, didn't the same thing happen with Shania Twain? She marketed herself as being part Native American, but it turns out that her percentage, going by ancestry, was zero?

Also, why has nobody yet linked to

Actually in Shania's case she was taking on her adoptive fathers Ojibaw heritage. The Canadian First Nations are still arguing over whether or not an adopted child is truly part of the tribe. But she has refused to back away and still claims it IIRC.
 
Cherokee people, Cherokee tribe

So proud to live, so proud to die

They took the whole Indian nation

Locked us on this reservation

Though I wear a shirt and tie

I’m still part redman deep inside

 
You dismiss a fact chck article from the Washington Post as from a "liberal news outlet", yet offer up a conservative op-Ed piece as evidence? This is a good example of my theory that so many conservatives live in their own bubble- they reject facts in favor of what they choose to hear from their own sources. No wonder so many were all but certain Obama would lose the election. Anyone who claimed otherwise was, after all, from a "liberal news outlet".
Yeah...this isn't limited to conservatives. No reason to single them out.
I think there is a reason. I think conservatives in recent years are much more guilty of this than liberals. That is my firm impression.
Its painfully one sided. Why do you think Fox has to push so hard that the "lame stream" media is so liberal biased? Because the real liberal media has no viewers.That's why Oberman has disappeared and current tv sold out and Rush is a multi millionaire. And why Fox kills msmbc in ratings.Liberals don't like red meat shoved down there throats like conservatives do.This whole thread is a perfect example. No one in there right mind would disagree with what EW is saying but rush and hanity said she's bad so lets debate this nonsense instead.
 
I think we would be much better off if we worried less about where a person comes from (or doesn't) and more about what they are doing in the offices they hold today.In the case of Elizabeth Warren, her ancestry and pre-Senatorial background are absolutely meaningless to me. I'm a big fan of the way she is trying to hold corporate banks accountable to the same civil and criminal standards as individual citizens and I don't care if she is hugely wealthy or had easy jobs in the past.In the case of Barack Obama, his ancestry is and pre-Presidential background are absolutely meaningless to me. I'm not a big fan of the way he is governing like a moderate Republican and I don't care that he is perceived as more liberal because he is black or lots of people call him a socialist.
Several :goodposting: s in this thread and this is one.
 
Regarding the Cherokee thing, didn't the same thing happen with Shania Twain? She marketed herself as being part Native American, but it turns out that her percentage, going by ancestry, was zero?

Also, why has nobody yet linked to

I am also a huge fan of Warren. Although I understand, and agree with, her underlying argument in this clip - didn't you think the vehicle she used to try and portray her point a little odd? She seemed to sort of weaken her broader point about 'too big to fail' by arguing the banks should pay the government some arbitrary fee because they have certain advantages due to the public's perception of their safety. What were your thoughts?

I think I mentioned this specific line of questioning seemed odd to me in the other thread as well - not sure if it garnered any responses there.

 
Regarding the Cherokee thing, didn't the same thing happen with Shania Twain? She marketed herself as being part Native American, but it turns out that her percentage, going by ancestry, was zero?

Also, why has nobody yet linked to

Actually what she was saying is the big banks get their money almost free of charge while small banks pay substantially more giving already too big to fail banks a way to get bigger at smaller banks expense via that subsidy.
 
Regarding the Cherokee thing, didn't the same thing happen with Shania Twain? She marketed herself as being part Native American, but it turns out that her percentage, going by ancestry, was zero?

Also, why has nobody yet linked to

I got that, but then she pointed to the Bloomberg study that monetized that subsidy and then said the banks should pay that back to the government. I agree with her, but by framing her argument like that I think she set herself up to be more easily dismissed.

Small potatoes, I know, but it just struck me as odd upon watching it.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top