IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New You were at that meeting?
"make up sexist bullshit"

You know that for sure?
--

Drew
New Preponderance of evidence.
Beginning at least since 1988.

Are you saying the onus is on the accused?

We should believe Liz because "she's been so honest" otherwise?

bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New [sighs ... shakes head]
--

Drew
New Proving a negative is oft difficult. Film at 11.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New You sure swallowed Trump's talking points hook, line, and sinker.
Or, hey, did it even need him to repeat them? For all we know, maybe you wanted to believe[1] that bullcrap even before he went into politics.

She WAS being honest, you utter fuck-nut. As far as she knew at the time, she was descended from Red Injuns.


___
1: Woo-ooo-oo... Cue the X-Files spooky music.
--

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who (used to think he) Knows Fucking Everything


Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
New Try harder.
I'm aware of no claim that the card was fake.

"She was descended from, in part, X" in no way implies the right to claim X as your "Race". At best she could claim "-X". But that would suggest she thought at the time that at least one of her grandparents was Native American and that is plainly not the case.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New That's because no one *did* claim that
She was told she had Indian ancestry. I was told I have Irish ancestry. I've never checked the records, I just assumed my parents knew what they were talking about. I can believe she did the same.

Was there some benefit to claiming it in law school? Probably. Did she believe she has a valid claim? Well, "the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has no [blood quantum] requirement, and only requires lineal descent from a documented Cherokee ancestor." (Wikipedia) I wouldn't look up birth records before claiming Irish ancestry. Why would I assume she'd do different?
--

Drew
New little more complicated than blood quantum
Either you are descended from someone on the rolls or you are not. Theoretically she could have had a full blood ancestor who wasn't enrolled (many did not) so would have no standing on being a cherokee despite having Indian blood.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New My point is, how many of us doubt the stories our parents tell us?
--

Drew
New My entire family thought an ancestor on my mom's side was Blackfoot
Until my mother had a DNA test and discovered she was part Irish instead.

But again, we thought we had photographic evidence and more. Turns out she was a great grand aunt once removed (or something) by marriage only.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New And that wasn't my point, was it?
My point was that all we have is her as a source for the dubious claim that, "Bernie said a woman couldn't win." Even his detractors admit Bernie is nothing if not consistent and he has been a consistent supporter of women, as well as women in politics for over fifty years. As Matt Taibbi said, "It's inconceivable that he said that." The point is that this is most definitely not the first time Warren has made a claim without evidence and so, at best, Warren is confused about what he said and consequently mischaracterized it.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New probably got him confused with her dad the janitor
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New No, it was your only entry in the "preponderance of evidence"
And saying a woman can't win is very different from saying a woman shouldn't win.

Suppose Bernie had polling showing that all the women in the race at the time polled significantly worse compared to the men in red states. If you trust the polls - and whether you should or not is a different issue - it's not far from there to the conclusion that a woman can't win.
--

Drew
New Yes, that was exactly your point. You made it your point when you posted that card.
Your point was: "Look, she's lying now, just like she was then!" But the point is, she wasn't "lying" then (just misinformed), so that doesn't support your thesis that she must be lying now. Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with you: Are you too stupid to keep track of what point you're making, or just so stupid you think we are too stupid to keep track of what point you're making?

Also: I don't think that word means what you (or Matt Taibbi) think it means. I can very well conceive of Bernie saying -- and thinking -- exactly that. If you (and Taibbi) can't, that says less about Bernie and more about your (and Taibbi's) powers of conception.
--

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who (used to think he) Knows Fucking Everything


Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
New You're really not trying that hard are you?
Or are you just thick? A little Trumpian projection, perhaps?

Your point was: "Look, she's lying now, just like she was then!"


Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Incorrect. My point was: "Look, here's an example of her being an untrustworthy source in the past, so there's no reason to take her word on something alone as evidence of something that to most informed folk appears to be completely incredible."

Thanks for playing. But next time maybe wear a helmet so you don't hurt yourself.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New I didn't say "larger", I said "bigger". Completely different!
--

Drew
New You're really trying a bit too hard, aren't you?
1) She wasn't "an untrustworthy source" then either, because
a) She was telling the truth exactly as she knew it; if someone was untrustworthy it wasn't her but her ancestors who had exaggerated the proportion of Injun blood in the family's veins, and
b) She DOES actually have native ancestry (just not as much as she thought). Did one have to have a Tribal Council Seal of Approval to claim to be Injun back then too, BTW, or is that a later bureaucratic invention?

2) The only way for her to be "an untrustworthy source" NOW would be that she's lying, because this time she isn't reporting on family lore (hearsay), but as an eye-(and ear-)witness on what she herself heard him say.

But OK, even granting that she were "an untrustworthy source" back then: So with a bit of good will, your point is "She's lying now, just as she was inadvertently untrustworthy then!"...

That's still calling her a liar. Which you have no proof for. Which makes it an assholeish thing to do. Which you can't wiggle out of, however hard you try. So do the decent thing, man up, and just fucking take it back.
--

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who (used to think he) Knows Fucking Everything


Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
New 1. False. 2. False.
Re 1:
As pertains to *facts*, she clearly was an untrustworthy source. She claimed to be (in whole, by the way) an "American Indian." That is false, notwithstanding what she may or may not have believed. Wouldn't you call a MAGA Trumpster who *believed* Climate Change was a Chinese hoax an untrustworthy source of information?

2:
She needn't necessarily be lying now. I'll grant you that she might have "thought" she had significant Native American ancestry before (notwithstanding the fact that filling out "American Indian" as your race is not equivalent to saying, "I have significant Native American ancestry). But let's assume that's true. That what she meant by claiming she was an "American Indian" was that she "had significant Native American ancestry." Fine. The claim was still false. IOW, her belief did not align with reality. The same could be true in this latest case. She could have misinterpreted something Bernie said. If so, she's not "lying" in this case anymore than she was "lying" in the previous case.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New On the other hand...
Bernie has his flaws.

Paul Krugman opinion at NY Times: Biden, Sanders, Social Security and Smears.
Lying about a rival is bad, even if you don’t like his past positions.
While the news media has been focused on the “spat” between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, something much more serious has been taking place between the Sanders campaign and Joe Biden. Not to sugarcoat it: The Sanders campaign has flat-out lied about things Biden said in 2018 about Social Security, and it has refused to admit the falsehood.

This is bad; it is, indeed, almost Trumpian. The last thing we need is another president who demonizes and lies about anyone who disagrees with him, and can’t admit ever being wrong. Biden deserves an apology, now, and Sanders probably needs to find better aides.
You want to get in to all the stuff Bernie did for gun manufacturers in the distant past?
Alex

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New I already said I might vote for the former Senator from MBNA.
I know Bernie has his faults. That's not what got my dander up. The fact is being sexist is not among them.

Bernie's policies I am more inline with than Biden's. I'm no fan of plagiarism and will not be excited to vote for Biden (curiously in 1988 he was my first choice - but he blew that by his recitation of a Neil Kinnock speech that he claimed as his own. Aside: that was a quaint time. Plagiarism was sufficient grounds to end a Presidential campaign back then. Can you imagine?).

I'm old enough to remember McGovern - whom the kids also adored and then didn't show up for in the general. I fear the same would happen if Bernie were the nominee. If kids in the 70's had short attention spans, kids today have attention spans that are of insufficient duration to measure. Moreover, there are enough old farts my age who grew up fearing Godless Communism/Socialism and are still terrified by the mere mention of those words, notwithstanding the fact that none of them ever understood them - or will ever understand them.

So, I'm a likely Biden voter not because I think he is the best choice, but because I truly believe America is incapable of any better.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Brevity Award ..last five words.
Indeed.. I reccognize that my 'reasons' for settling for damn-near-Anyone on Demo-list (including those who ran out of $$) are the reasons that most of these--whose values, judgments we can only infer--will prove anathema to the cant-controlled, imagination-bereft ..likely plurality. (Unclear, as it will remain: the %young-uns who will look-up from their portable games + endless-texting? to show-Up to vote, even).

Shorter: ANYone who hasn't fathomed-yet: the countless lethal-actions a Drumpf (next *freeed from Any 'punishable' come-uppance)--over 4 More Years: is a despicable lemming. As the Temp Rises and anger predominates ... in every commute, in many mobscenes daily ... well-you-know..

* presuming merely, that not-even-Four Repos give a shit about [anything besides asured sinecures].
New ITYM six?
     The Bernie Bros Unicorns are back. - (mmoffitt) - (24)
         You were at that meeting? - (drook) - (21)
             Preponderance of evidence. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                 [sighs ... shakes head] -NT - (drook) - (1)
                     Proving a negative is oft difficult. Film at 11. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                 You sure swallowed Trump's talking points hook, line, and sinker. - (CRConrad) - (17)
                     Try harder. - (mmoffitt) - (16)
                         That's because no one *did* claim that - (drook) - (11)
                             little more complicated than blood quantum - (boxley) - (10)
                                 My point is, how many of us doubt the stories our parents tell us? -NT - (drook) - (9)
                                     My entire family thought an ancestor on my mom's side was Blackfoot - (malraux)
                                     And that wasn't my point, was it? - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                         probably got him confused with her dad the janitor -NT - (boxley)
                                         No, it was your only entry in the "preponderance of evidence" - (drook)
                                         Yes, that was exactly your point. You made it your point when you posted that card. - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                             You're really not trying that hard are you? - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                 I didn't say "larger", I said "bigger". Completely different! -NT - (drook)
                                                 You're really trying a bit too hard, aren't you? - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                     1. False. 2. False. - (mmoffitt)
                         On the other hand... - (a6l6e6x) - (3)
                             I already said I might vote for the former Senator from MBNA. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                 Brevity Award ..last five words. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                     ITYM six? -NT - (CRConrad)
         mostly agree but stating that warren cannot beat trump, I will disagree -NT - (boxley) - (1)
             Well, if she's the Democratic nominee... - (mmoffitt)

In th' stables, m'lord.
84 ms