Karl Rove lies about Elizabeth Warren in attack ads

[Bowfinger]

One is a politician, the other is a consultant. In this thread Warren is shown to either be a liar or grossly misinformed about the heritage that earned her a spot on one of the United States most prestigious establishments and who wouldn't even do the minimum due diligence to show herself worthy of what she was claiming. She reaped the benefits of claiming native American heritage as did Harvard and neither did anything to assure themselves it was earned.
In this thread Rove is shown to be an intelligent political consultant who is pointing out the fuck ups that Warren has in her political background. He's being honest, she's being dishonest and your "false equivalency" is shown to be bullshit.

Repeating the same lie over and over does not make it true. For all your smoke blowing and hand waving, you have yet to show us Warren's presumed heritage was even known by Harvard when she was hired, nor that she has ever received ANY material benefit from professing it. If you have such evidence, show it. Otherwise, crawl back under your bridge.

 

[monovillage]

Repeating the same lie over and over does not make it true. For all your smoke blowing and hand waving, you have yet to show us Warren's presumed heritage was even known by Harvard when she was hired, nor that she has ever received ANY material benefit from professing it. If you have such evidence, show it. Otherwise, crawl back under your bridge.

That's what due diligence means. Look it up.

 

[Bowfinger]

Bowfinger, I find myself increasingly frustrated with what I perceive as a willingness to forego questioning for acceptance of political unity. There are notable exceptions in my mind, and those tend to be those who may have philosophies which may at time differ from mine but have demonstrated a goodwill which trancends party affiliation. I consider you one of them, and one whom I consider a friend, Moonbeam, is another example. While we are different, thats not a negative, but quite the reverse. It ought to be that intelligent people can bring things to the table with a sincerity of positive purpose with the intent of improving our world and ourselves. Sadly my perception is that over time this is an increasingly rare thing and I confess I'm less tolerant of it than I used to be and I'm sure it shows. Now it's entirely possible that I'm wrong and age is hardening the cerebral arteries. Truthfully I'd rather it be that way because my impression is that theres little hope for rational, effective examination and consequent improvement. Pyrrhic victories seem to be a desired end.

Thank you, likewise. I know you and I have different views about "Obamacare", for example, but I think we discussed them constructively. As a result, I understand and very much respect your position, and have altered my own views somewhat based on your observations. Unfortunately, productive discussion is far too infrequent here. It frustrates me to no end; we have an above-average number of smart people here, yet almost every thread quickly degrades into two entrenched lines, divided purely on partisan lines. Any attempt to strike a reasoned middle ground, to discuss issues on merits rather than politics, is drowned under the noise. And I know I'm often guilty too. It just seems like thoughtful posts are ignored while inflammatory posts get responses. We have great potential, but it's squandered by blind partisanship.

 

[Bowfinger]

That's what due diligence means. Look it up.

There's no reason she needed to do one damn bit of due diligence when she wsn't exploiting it. Harvard? Yes. Her? No, not at all. I think I know what my heritage is, but I have no reason to research it. The fact that a few sanctimonious hacks suddenly decide it's important is their problem, not mine ... nor hers.

But all of this is just more of you dodging your own failure to support your claims. Put up or shut up.

 

[woolfe9999]

Thank you, likewise. I know you and I have different views about "Obamacare", for example, but I think we discussed them constructively. As a result, I understand and very much respect your position, and have altered my own views somewhat based on your observations. Unfortunately, productive discussion is far too infrequent here. It frustrates me to no end; we have an above-average number of smart people here, yet almost every thread quickly degrades into two entrenched lines, divided purely on partisan lines. Any attempt to strike a reasoned middle ground, to discuss issues on merits rather than politics, is drowned under the noise. And I know I'm often guilty too. It just seems like thoughtful posts are ignored while inflammatory posts get responses. We have great potential, but it's squandered by blind partisanship.

I noticed this as well. It seems if you want to get a response to your posts, you either have to be really strident, really insulting, or else say something downright stupid. Downright stupid works best because people like to respond to material that they can easily refute. Using sound logic gets you ignored more often than not, as does being civil.

 

[CallMeJoe]

A note of interest on the challenges to Elizabeth Warren's presumed Cherokee heritage: Fox News states a Massachusetts genealogist has established that Ms. Warren is 1/32 Cherokee. I now cite one Bill John Baker, Principle Chief of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, Ms. Warren's native state. Chief Baker is also 1/32 Cherokee by blood.


If the Cherokee Nation feels that 1/32 blood heritage is sufficient for their Principle Chief, is that same fraction not sufficient for a Little Indian?

 

[HomerJS]

Karl Rove obviously a Star Trek fan is a practioner of the liar paradox...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzVxsYzXI_Y

Harry Mudd - Karl Rove
Android - Republicans

 

[monovillage]

A note of interest on the challenges to Elizabeth Warren's presumed Cherokee heritage: Fox News states a Massachusetts genealogist has established that Ms. Warren is 1/32 Cherokee. I now cite one Bill John Baker, Principle Chief of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, Ms. Warren's native state. Chief Baker is also 1/32 Cherokee by blood.


If the Cherokee Nation feels that 1/32 blood heritage is sufficient for their Principle Chief, is that same fraction not sufficient for a Little Indian?

Nice misdirection there Joe.

Massachusetts genealogist said he uncovered evidence that Warren's great-great-great grandmother had listed herself as Cherokee in an 1894 document. That would make Warren 1/32nd American Indian.

Requirements for tribal membership vary from tribe to tribe. The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians requires a bloodline of at least 1/4 Cherokee, according to the genealogy website All Things Cherokee.The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians requires at least 1/16, making someone with a bloodline of 1/32 one generation beyond that threshold.

1. Evidence not given or shown. Why not just say " a partisan Democrat genealogist has uncovered evidence, he's just waiting for the ink to dry."
2. One tribe requires 1/4 blood, the other tribe requires 1/16, something that Warren doesn't have even if the doubtful list proves true.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice misdirection there Joe.



1. Evidence not given or shown. Why not just say " a partisan Democrat genealogist has uncovered evidence, he's just waiting for the ink to dry."
2. One tribe requires 1/4 blood, the other tribe requires 1/16, something that Warren doesn't have even if the doubtful list proves true.

And yet Chief Baker is 1/32 Cherokee, making your point mere distraction.

The whole fracas is distraction from the real issues of the campaign, anyway, and from the contradictory attack ads fielded by Rove's group... Warren, in their scenario, is both a dangerous leftist & a tool of Wall St...

Repubs need distraction if they're to win in November, so expect a lot of them.

 

[monovillage]

And yet Chief Baker is 1/32 Cherokee, making your point mere distraction.

The whole fracas is distraction from the real issues of the campaign, anyway, and from the contradictory attack ads fielded by Rove's group... Warren, in their scenario, is both a dangerous leftist & a tool of Wall St...

Repubs need distraction if they're to win in November, so expect a lot of them.

What does Chief Baker have to do with this? Warren is not a member of the Cherokee tribe. You disgrace the honor of the native American tribes by acting as if they're all the same.
In Roves ads he shows evidence that yes, Warren is both a dangerous leftist and a tool of Wall St. They are not mutually exclusive.
Republicans don't need any distractions to win in November, all we need is the truth. You're the one along with the Democrats throwing up distractions and telling lies.

 

[Jhhnn]

What does Chief Baker have to do with this? Warren is not a member of the Cherokee tribe. You disgrace the honor of the native American tribes by acting as if they're all the same.
In Roves ads he shows evidence that yes, Warren is both a dangerous leftist and a tool of Wall St. They are not mutually exclusive.
Republicans don't need any distractions to win in November, all we need is the truth. You're the one along with the Democrats throwing up distractions and telling lies.

Oh, wait... I'm confused... A chief of the Cherokee tribe need on have 1/32 Cherokee blood, but Warren can't claim Cherokee ancestry because she's only 1/32 Cherokee... in your mind, there's no contradiction in that, apparently.

The rest is pure desperation, absurdity on non-sequiter in that willfully blind way that Righties have mastered...

A dangerous leftist tool of Wall St! That's kinda like a Commie Free Marketeer, right? A Marxist Capitalist! Yeh, that's it.

You need to man-up, back away from your position and actually examine it, reconsider, rather than defending an indefensible position.

Probably not, because you're invested in it, emotionally and ideologically, in a way that renders you blind to your own inconsistencies.

 

[monovillage]

Oh, wait... I'm confused... A chief of the Cherokee tribe need on have 1/32 Cherokee blood, but Warren can't claim Cherokee ancestry because she's only 1/32 Cherokee... in your mind, there's no contradiction in that, apparently.

No, those are the rules and regulations of the Cherokee tribe. You don't think that native American tribes have the right to pass their own laws concerning who's a member?

The rest is pure desperation, absurdity on non-sequiter in that willfully blind way that Righties have mastered...

A dangerous leftist tool of Wall St! That's kinda like a Commie Free Marketeer, right? A Marxist Capitalist! Yeh, that's it.

You need to man-up, back away from your position and actually examine it, reconsider, rather than defending an indefensible position.

Probably not, because you're invested in it, emotionally and ideologically, in a way that renders you blind to your own inconsistencies.

You don't even know what "man-up" means.
You're the one making up lies like "Commie Free Marketeer' Not Rove. You lie about him telling lies, then you lie about what supposed lies he told. Watch the videos and you can see he didn't lie at all.

 

[CallMeJoe]

No, those are the rules and regulations of the Cherokee tribe. You don't think that native American tribes have the right to pass their own laws concerning who's a member?

You may be correct concerning the rules of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation, but Elizabeth Warren is from Oklahoma, not the Carolinas. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has different standards, electing a man of similar heritage to Ms. Warren its Principle Chief.

Do you actually contend that the Principle Chief of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is not a Cherokee?

 

[monovillage]

You may be correct concerning the rules of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation, but Elizabeth Warren is from Oklahoma, not the Carolinas. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has different standards, electing a man of similar heritage to Ms. Warren its Principle Chief.

Do you actually contend that the Principle Chief of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is not a Cherokee?

No, nor did I say it. How do you know what native American tribe is allegedly claimed by Warren? Has she claimed an actual tribe? I thought she just claimed the generic "native American" label that helped to get her hired at Harvard and helped Harvard avoid charges of racism.

 

[Bowfinger]

No, nor did I say it. How do you know what native American tribe is allegedly claimed by Warren? Has she claimed an actual tribe? I thought she just claimed the generic "native American" label that helped to get her hired at Harvard and helped Harvard avoid charges of racism.

Repeating the same lie over and over does not make it true. For all your smoke blowing and hand waving, you have yet to show us Warren's presumed heritage was even known by Harvard when she was hired, nor that she has ever received ANY material benefit from professing it. If you have such evidence, show it. Otherwise, crawl back under your bridge.

 

[CallMeJoe]

No, nor did I say it. How do you know what native American tribe is allegedly claimed by Warren? Has she claimed an actual tribe? I thought she just claimed the generic "native American" label that helped to get her hired at Harvard and helped Harvard avoid charges of racism.

A woman of Cherokee blood from a state which has the largest Cherokee population in the United States claims Native American heritage and you assume she cannot mean she is part Cherokee.

You continue to assert that Ms. Warren used her Native American heritage to secure her seat at Harvard without producing any evidence that she had publicly claimed Native American heritage before her hiring, and in the face of multiple statements that her Native American heritage was never mentioned during her interviews for that position.

In this thread you redefine the term "tortured logic".

 

[monovillage]

A woman of Cherokee blood from a state which has the largest Cherokee population in the United States claims Native American heritage and you assume she cannot mean she is part Cherokee.

You continue to assert that Ms. Warren used her Native American heritage to secure her seat at Harvard without producing any evidence that she had publicly claimed Native American heritage before her hiring, and in the face of multiple statements that her Native American heritage was never mentioned during her interviews for that position.

In this thread you redefine the term "tortured logic".

Again, since you won't answer it. How do you know what tribe Elizabeth Warren is claiming to be a member of? Do you even know how many tribes were a part of the Trail of Tears?

We do know that Harvard claimed Warren as a minority member to defuse accusations that they didn't have enough minorities in faculty positions. Whether or not Warren claimed the heritage to be hired or kept her employment due to her claims or if it was any benefit to her career we'll have to wait for the results of FOIA inquiries. By multiple statements do you mean "I don't recall" or "I can't remember if..." or "I have no recollection of"

These are lawyers you know.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Again, since you won't answer it. How do you know what tribe Elizabeth Warren is claiming to be a member of? Do you even know how many tribes were a part of the Trail of Tears?

Why do you insist she must claim one specific Nation to claim Native American heritage, when it has been demonstrated that she meets the same standard as the Principle Chief of the actual Nation from which she is descended?

We do know that Harvard claimed Warren as a minority member to defuse accusations that they didn't have enough minorities in faculty positions. Whether or not Warren claimed the heritage to be hired or kept her employment due to her claims or if it was any benefit to her career we'll have to wait for the results of FOIA inquiries. By multiple statements do you mean "I don't recall" or "I can't remember if..." or "I have no recollection of"
These are lawyers you know.

At last you admit that you have no direct evidence for your repeated claim that Ms. Warren used her Native American heritage to secure her seat at Harvard. Was it really that difficult?

 

[monovillage]

double post

 

[monovillage]

Why do you insist she must claim one specific Nation to claim Native American heritage, when it has been demonstrated that she meets the same standard as the Principle Chief of the actual Nation from which she is descended?

What? I mean WTF?

At last you admit that you have no direct evidence for your repeated claim that Ms. Warren used her Native American heritage to secure her seat at Harvard. Was it really that difficult?

There is direct evidence that Harvard used her claim for political purposes, that's pretty good proof.I doubt we ever will unless Harvard and Warren agree to show her personnel records, which they never will unless forced by FOIA laws. Maybe we'll both find out in a few years.

 

[CallMeJoe]

What? I mean WTF?

I suppose I could have assumed from your previous posts that you have difficulty understanding written English. What specific part of that sentence can you not parse?

There is direct evidence that Harvard used her claim for political purposes, that's pretty good proof.I doubt we ever will unless Harvard and Warren agree to show her personnel records, which they never will unless forced by FOIA laws. Maybe we'll both find out in a few years.

More vague innuendo directed at Ms. Warren because her previous employer used her heritage to promote its own interests.
Pathetic.

 

[monovillage]

She is not a native American. She is not Cherokee. She can not prove she is Cherokee. She is not descended from the Cherokee nation.
Can you fucking prove she's a native American? Which she and Harvard would have to do to make the claim (which we have proof Harvard did?) NO! No you can't, she can't and Harvard can't.


http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/0...s-silent-as-source-document-exposed-as-false/

 

[Jhhnn]

I suppose I could have assumed from your previous posts that you have difficulty understanding written English. What specific part of that sentence can you not parse?

More vague innuendo directed at Ms. Warren because her previous employer used her heritage to promote its own interests.
Pathetic.

Apparently, his huge emotional investment prevents rational thought. Sad, really.

 

[monovillage]

Apparently, his huge emotional investment prevents rational thought. Sad, really.

You got tired of lying about Karl Rove and Elizabeth Warren and her heritage so you start lying about me? Good move.

 

[Jhhnn]

You got tired of lying about Karl Rove and Elizabeth Warren and her heritage so you start lying about me? Good move.

My favorite part?

In Roves ads he shows evidence that yes, Warren is both a dangerous leftist and a tool of Wall St. They are not mutually exclusive.

Having put that oxymoron out as an absolute, any credibility you might have crumbled, other than in your own mind.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on that, show us all how it fits together into some grand conspiracy a la a Wayne Pierre rant of incoherency...