• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Karl Rove lies about Elizabeth Warren in attack ads

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I bet we can't even agree with one of the most obvious truths in the world, that Carl Rove is a human turd.

Hehehe I think several people I once admired for their politics proved out to be human turds.

But I learned long ago that I had to eat my ego if I wanted to respect myself and seek truth wherever it winds. But for those who lack self respect, truthiness is their substitute. They believe just that truth that flatters their ego. Delusion is a necessity for those with a conservative brain defect. One can't walk around all day feeling worthless consciously.
 
monovillage said:
You are such a partisan clown on this issue it almost hurts to see you wiggle and squirm. Rove didn't lie, craig the partisan hack didn't even post a link in the OP that he had.
Warren lied about her heritage to earn special liberal points for being a native American and secure a job and Harvard used her lies to get special liberal points for hiring a native American.
All the liberals got all outraged about the non-lie that Rove told, but are perfectly happy with the lies that Warren told.
Who's the liar? Elizabeth Warren is the liar.
Rove is not the liar.
You are trying to divert from the fact that Warren is the liar, not Rove, but I'll be happy to start a new Elizabeth Warren is a liar thread if you ask me to.
Click to expand...

Here's the original ad smearing her wrt OWS-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNxez4ddpa0

Here's the newer one where's she's labeled as a tool of wall st-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78NZk1o8nr0&feature=youtu.be

Nehalem256 put it well- "The courage to flip-flop"

Of course, Rove & Crossroads GPS claim the ads "aren't political" so that they can maintain donor anonymity as a 501(C)(4) group...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...t-Elizabeth-Warren-Tim-Kaine-aren-t-political
 
xBiffx said:
Warren, AKA Spreading Bull:



Why is it that we never hear anything about this all so important heritage until Scott Brown brings up Harvard as an issue. If this was such an important part of her life, why no mention of it until now? Never was it mentioned previously on the campaign trail. Something smells here.
Click to expand...

Elizabeth Warren made the claim of being a native American on official documents, she bears the burden of proof. She received the benefits of the heritage, now it looks like fraud.
 
Jhhnn said:
Here's the original ad smearing her wrt OWS-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNxez4ddpa0

Here's the newer one where's she's labeled as a tool of wall st-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78NZk1o8nr0&feature=youtu.be

Nehalem256 put it well- "The courage to flip-flop"

Of course, Rove & Crossroads GPS claim the ads "aren't political" so that they can maintain donor anonymity as a 501(C)(4) group...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...t-Elizabeth-Warren-Tim-Kaine-aren-t-political
Click to expand...

Both of those you tube ads are totally accurate. Can you point out one-1- thing that's not accurate in either of those ads?

As for the issue advocacy instead of political ads, I'll let the court or the FEC decide.
 
monovillage said:
Elizabeth Warren made the claim of being a native American on official documents, she bears the burden of proof. She received the benefits of the heritage, now it looks like fraud.
Click to expand...

What is an "official document" by your definition? What "benefits" do you claim she received? And finally, why are you no longer specifically claiming that she "lied to get a job" like you first claimed when you raised this issue in this thread?

Look, I read all 3 of your articles and this is a non-starter. She made a claim based on information orally passed to her by family members - a very common occurrence. There is no evidence she benefited from making this claim. The best you can do here is that she should never have claimed it at any time without thoroughly researching it first. You cannot prove she lied because you cannot prove she wasn't passing on information given to her by family members, and it isn't even implausible that she was because this sort of thing happens all the time. And you have zero proof that she ever benefited from this claim.

So what is the issue here again?
 
woolfe9999 said:
What is an "official document" by your definition? What "benefits" do you claim she received? And finally, why are you no longer specifically claiming that she "lied to get a job" like you first claimed when you raised this issue in this thread?

Look, I read all 3 of your articles and this is a non-starter. She made a claim based on information orally passed to her by family members - a very common occurrence. There is no evidence she benefited from making this claim. The best you can do here is that she should never have claimed it at any time without thoroughly researching it first. You cannot prove she lied because you cannot prove she wasn't passing on information given to her by family members, and it isn't even implausible that she was because this sort of thing happens all the time. And you have zero proof that she ever benefited from this claim.

So what is the issue here again?
Click to expand...

I disagree with your assessment of the articles.

The Ivy League law school prominently touted Warren’s Native American background, however, in an effort to bolster their diversity hiring record in the ’90s as the school came under heavy fire for a faculty that was then predominantly white and male.

“Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic,” The Harvard Crimson quotes then-Law School spokesman Mike Chmura as saying in a 1996 article. The Crimson added that 83 percent of the Law School’s students believed the number of minority women on staff was inadequate.

“Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said professor of law Elizabeth Warren is Native American,” the Crimson wrote.

The Crimson noted Warren’s heritage again in 1998 when Lani Guinier became the first black woman tenured at the law school, mentioning that Warren was “the first woman with a minority background to be tenured.”

The Warren campaign said the candidate never authorized Harvard Law to claim her as a minority hire.
Click to expand...
While her campaign claims she never authorized it, she certainly never denied it in the 15 or so years she's had to comment on very public claim by Harvard. If you think she received no benefits from being “the first woman with a minority background to be tenured.” I think you're being naive.
 
monovillage said:
I disagree with your assessment of the articles.


While her campaign claims she never authorized it, she certainly never denied it in the 15 or so years she's had to comment on very public claim by Harvard. If you think she received no benefits from being “the first woman with a minority background to be tenured.” I think you're being naive.
Click to expand...

As a young girl, she was apparently taught by her family that she had native american ancestry. She believed that.

Harvard's use of that for propaganda purposes just shows how much they've been a bastion of white male intellectualism & how badly they've dragged their feet changing it.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
 
Jhhnn said:
So, uhh, you resurrected this thread so you could duh-vert from the subject of it?

If you want to talk about Warren's native american ancestry or lack thereof & how she may or may not have claimed it to her advantage, Then you need to do so in a thread somewhat more than tangentially related.

Neither of Rove's attack ads mentioned that at all, did they? Why do you even bring it up? Do those ads contradict each other, or not?

Or does any of that matter in your fervent desire to discredit Warren?

Or is she an anti-bank leftist tool of Wall St because she has native american ancestry?

Get a clue.
Click to expand...

It's just typical Monobrain throw shit at the walls and see what sticks posting. With the usual foam thrown in.
 
hal2kilo said:
It's just typical Monobrain throw shit at the walls and see what sticks posting. With the usual foam thrown in.
Click to expand...

You just hate it that Elizabeth Warren lied about her heritage for benefits. She lied about being an Native American so she could reap the rewards that are set aside for them at institutions like Harvard to help repair the damage that has been caused to their people and culture for so long. Yet you're so concerned with the Democrats holding on to control in the Senate that you're willing to defend her behavior for political gain.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
monovillage said:
You just hate it that Elizabeth Warren lied about her heritage for benefits. She lied about being an Native American so she could reap the rewards that are set aside for them at institutions like Harvard to help repair the damage that has been caused to their people and culture for so long. Yet you're so concerned with the Democrats holding on to control in the Senate that you're willing to defend her behavior for political gain.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

You might want to wipe that crap off the corner of your mouth.
 
Bowfinger said:
Prove it. Provide factual and credible evidence that Warren knew she had so little Native American ancestry. Prove that Warren knowingly attempted to gain any personal advantage from it. The bottom line is you're a bitter hack, butt-hurt because one of your idols was caught in yet another lie, so you compulsively lashed out with whatever counterattack you could come up with, no matter how dishonest and absurd it might be.

If you want to criticize Harvard for dishonesty, go for it. You've presented evidence that supports such criticism. You've FAILED to present such evidence for Warren, however. Maybe she is as dishonest as you insist. Prove it. Put up or shut up. Back your talking points with actual evidence.
Click to expand...

Prove GWB lied about WMDs. While I could hardly care about Warren it's interesting to see the shoe on the other foot. I do know that my daughter could not get a scholarship without supporting documentation.
 
monovillage said:
I disagree with your assessment of the articles.


While her campaign claims she never authorized it, she certainly never denied it in the 15 or so years she's had to comment on very public claim by Harvard. If you think she received no benefits from being “the first woman with a minority background to be tenured.” I think you're being naive.
Click to expand...

Yes, but your articles also state that this never came up in her hiring process. It's possible that Harvard itself got some intangible benefit from it perception wise, after she was hired. She didn't correct Harvard's representation because she thought it was true.

I think you can agree that every family has its oral history, and that it isn't at all unlikely that family members had told her this. In a perfect world, no one should ever make a claim based on oral family history without doing the leg work of researching their genealogy. However, failing to do so isn't lying. It's being careless at best, and the carelessness of it has to be judged against the context in which it was used. Saying it in casual conversation to people doesn't require rigorous diligence. Saying it on a job or scholarship application does. This is kind of somewhere in between.

I dunno. It's pretty marginal. If Brown or the GOP really wants to discredit Warren they're going to have to do better than this.
 
Last edited:
Hayabusa Rider said:
Prove GWB lied about WMDs. While I could hardly care about Warren it's interesting to see the shoe on the other foot. I do know that my daughter could not get a scholarship without supporting documentation.
Click to expand...

I hope you realize just how utterly ludicrous this analogy is, right?
 
woolfe9999 said:
Yes, but your articles also state that this never came up in her hiring process. It's possible that Harvard itself got some intangible benefit from it perception wise, after she was hired. She didn't correct Harvard's representation because she thought it was true.

I think you can agree that every family has its oral history, and that it isn't at all unlikely that family members had told her this. In a perfect world, no one should ever make a claim based on oral family history without doing the leg work of researching their genealogy. However, failing to do so isn't lying. It's being careless at best, and the carelessness of it has to be judged against the context in which it was used. Saying it casual conversation to people doesn't require rigorous diligence. Saying it on a job or scholarship application does. This is kind of somewhere in between.

I dunno. It's pretty marginal. If Brown or the GOP really wants to discredit Warren they're going to have to do better than this.
Click to expand...

I'm part Cherokee and therefore so is my daughter. Theres no doubt but another Ivy League college said we would need official tribal recognition. You can't get a scholarship without it. Just an FYI.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Yes, but your articles also state that this never came up in her hiring process. It's possible that Harvard itself got some intangible benefit from it perception wise, after she was hired. She didn't correct Harvard's representation because she thought it was true.
Click to expand...

She did mention in the article that she "checked the box" so she did put herself down as a Native American, what was said by Harvard was "I don't recall"

think you can agree that every family has its oral history, and that it isn't at all unlikely that family members had told her this. In a perfect world, no one should ever make a claim based on oral family history without doing the leg work of researching their genealogy. However, failing to do so isn't lying. It's being careless at best, and the carelessness of it has to be judged against the context in which it was used. Saying it casual conversation to people doesn't require rigorous diligence. Saying it on a job or scholarship application does. This is kind of somewhere in between.

I dunno. It's pretty marginal. If Brown or the GOP really wants to discredit Warren they're going to have to do better than this.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% , I think she actually made an honest mistake based on her families oral history, just like Rove didn't lie in the ads, but did his job as a political operative. As Hayabusa put in his earlier post, sometimes someone is wrong, or not perfectly accurate, it doesn't make it a lie, it just makes it wrong and political fodder for partisan hacks. It's why I resurrected this thread rather than posting a new one.
 
monovillage said:
She did mention in the article that she "checked the box" so she did put herself down as a Native American, what was said by Harvard was "I don't recall"



I agree 100% , I think she actually made an honest mistake based on her families oral history, just like Rove didn't lie in the ads, but did his job as a political operative. As Hayabusa put in his earlier post, sometimes someone is wrong, or not perfectly accurate, it doesn't make it a lie, it just makes it wrong and political fodder for partisan hacks. It's why I resurrected this thread rather than posting a new one.
Click to expand...

Warren made an honest mistake, and Rove certainly "did his job as a political operative." On that we can agree. The trouble is that Rove's job, at least as he conceives it, is to intentionally mislead the public. Saying that Rove did his job as a political operative is like saying we can't fault Ted Bundy, because after all, he certainly did his job as a serial killer and did it quite well. So props to Ted!
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I'm part Cherokee and therefore so is my daughter. Theres no doubt but another Ivy League college said we would need official tribal recognition. You can't get a scholarship without it. Just an FYI.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. And that would even be relevant if Warren got a scholarship based on her alleged native American heritage.

So far as Harvard was concerned, they're more at fault than she was, because they were the ones using this publicly for their benefit. They probably should have asked her what it was based on and, upon discovering that it was oral history, they should have insisted on a genealogy check before using the information. Strictly speaking, Warren should never have allowed them to use it either without conducting such a check, but she didn't benefit from it directly and she did believe it was true, so everything here is about the ideals of a perfect world.
 
woolfe9999 said:
I'm sure you're right. And that would even be relevant if Warren got a scholarship based on her alleged native American heritage.

So far as Harvard was concerned, they're more at fault than she was, because they were the ones using this publicly for their benefit. They probably should have asked her what it was based on and, upon discovering that it was oral history, they should have insisted on a genealogy check before using the information. Strictly speaking, Warren should never have allowed them to use it either without conducting such a check, but she didn't benefit from it directly and she did believe it was true, so everything here is about the ideals of a perfect world.
Click to expand...

The conservative brain defect doesn't look for truth but for a rationalization to excuse its hideous nature. The nature of the ego protection doesn't matter so long as it's handy. If driven off one position they will take another. They will find out that one of her ancestors worked with Stalin or some other shit.

This is how Rove works. He feeds the mentally defectives rationalizations and any will do. It just has to churn up the disgust and contempt they were made to feel about themselves as children so they can project on them or her the hate they were beaten for if they expressed it toward their parents. These are very sick children we are speaking of here and none of it is their fault. They grew up in a very dark place.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
Warren made an honest mistake, and Rove certainly "did his job as a political operative." On that we can agree. The trouble is that Rove's job, at least as he conceives it, is to intentionally mislead the public. Saying that Rove did his job as a political operative is like saying we can't fault Ted Bundy, because after all, he certainly did his job as a serial killer and did it quite well. So props to Ted!
Click to expand...

Elizabeth Warren did not conduct due diligence as she should have and she, more than most people would know what due diligence is.
Comparing Rove to Ted Bundy is really beneath you.
If you had watched the ads they are totally accurate in regards to public stances that Warren has taken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top