Yes, that was exactly your point. You made it your point when you posted that card.

Post #432,324 by CRConrad 1/23/20 3:38:18 AM 1/23/20 3:38:18 AM Reply	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
Post #432,325 by mmoffitt 1/23/20 8:32:16 AM 1/23/20 8:32:16 AM Reply	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.
Post #432,326 by drook 1/23/20 9:01:28 AM 1/23/20 9:01:28 AM Reply	I didn't say "larger", I said "bigger". Completely different! -- Drew
Post #432,545 by CRConrad 2/10/20 5:47:01 AM 2/10/20 5:47:01 AM Reply	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
Post #432,549 by mmoffitt 2/10/20 8:46:22 AM 2/10/20 8:46:22 AM Reply	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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!