Page 26 of 75 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 742

Thread: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

  1. #251
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    So in other words, you have no real response to my point that the hobbyist, Breitbart geneologist assumed facts not in evidence, and of course when he assumed them, he assumed them in the light least favorable to Warren, notwithstanding the fact that he claimed he was stating a best-case scenario for her? That's what I thought.
    Uh, no, I had responses; you're apparently just waving your hand at them and saying I don't. So be it, I guess; par for your course.


    I agree that it would be good to see the marriage document that the certified geneologist relied on. It would also be good to see the census documents that the hobbyist geneologist relied on.

    Because, FYI, the early censuses didn't even ASK what the race was of specific members of the household. WTF?!

    http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decenni...s/1830a-01.pdf
    Funny how these documents break things down by sex and race, then. Did you even read them?


    Now you might still surmise SOMETHING from that sort of data, if you made a bunch of unfounded assumptions, but WTF?! Oklahoma wasn't even a STATE until 1907, so it wasn't included in the census!
    Yeah, champ. The census forms mentioned were from Tennessee, not Oklahoma.


    Well, maybe she was living in Tennessee as the hobbyist claims? Problem is, it appears that in the early census, members of assimilated indian tribes were listed as WHITE.
    Now, hold on -- just a few sentences above, you said they didn't ask for race on those census forms.

    You have no idea what you're posting from sentence to sentence.



    Where did I get that piece of info.? From the link in the hobbyist's own article.

    Could Elizabeth Warren Be a Minority? | America's North Shore Journal
    This is what you're relying on?

    The census records are only a valid proof if the census taker had the option to put Indian down for race. One of the comments states that assimilated Indians were listed as white at the time.
    "Comments" of what? Like, internet poster comments? Oh, hey, THERE'S an unimpeachable source. Hey, I'm going to use DP posts as evidence from now on; you're estopped from objecting.

    For some reason, whatever he linked to originally is inaccessible at the link currently (it won't scroll down); what you're referring to was posted days after his article.

    I notice, too, that you ignored the links which show the purported claim by the son might not even exist, because no one can seem to find it.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #252
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Uh, no, I had responses; you're apparently just waving your hand at them and saying I don't. So be it, I guess; par for your course.




    Funny how these documents break things down by sex and race, then. Did you even read them?




    Yeah, champ. The census forms mentioned were from Tennessee, not Oklahoma.




    Now, hold on -- just a few sentences above, you said they didn't ask for race on those census forms.

    You have no idea what you're posting from sentence to sentence.





    This is what you're relying on?



    "Comments" of what? Like, internet poster comments? Oh, hey, THERE'S an unimpeachable source. Hey, I'm going to use DP posts as evidence from now on; you're estopped from objecting.

    For some reason, whatever he linked to originally is inaccessible at the link currently (it won't scroll down); what you're referring to was posted days after his article.

    I notice, too, that you ignored the links which show the purported claim by the son might not even exist, because no one can seem to find it.
    Slow the motor mouth for a minute and do some actual research of your own. Stop relying on a hack hobbyist writing on a partisan website.

    The early censes only asked the name of the head of the household. No one else in the household was listed by name. Other information was just asked in broad categories, e.g.:

    Enumerators of the 1830 census were asked to include the following categories in the census: name of head of household; number of free white males and females in age categories: 0 to 5, 5 to 10, 10 to 15, 15 to 20, 20 to 30, 30 to 40, 40 to 50, 50 to 60, 60 to 70, 70 to 80, 80 to 90, 90 to 100, over 100; the name of a slave owner and the number of slaves owned by that person; the number of male and female slaves and free "colored" persons by age categories; the number of foreigners (not naturalized) in a household; the number of deaf, dumb, and blind persons within a household; and town or district, and county of residence.

    1830 Census :: 1830 U.S. Federal Census :: 1830 Free Census Resources
    So please tell me how you get from there to concluding that a particular woman living in the house was white. Take your time....
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  3. #253
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Slow the motor mouth for a minute and do some actual research of your own. Stop relying on a hack hobbyist writing on a partisan website.
    "Hack hobbyist" = "says things AdamT doesn't want to be true."


    The early censes only asked the name of the head of the household. No one else in the household was listed by name. Other information was just asked in broad categories, e.g.:
    This is different from what you said. You said they didn't ask for race at all. Looks like your own "motor mouth" got the better of you.


    So please tell me how you get from there to concluding that a particular woman living in the house was white. Take your time....
    1) If they list everyone in the household as white, what other conclusion can you draw?

    2) According to the article, she was mentioned by name, not the name of her husband.

    2) Even if you're right, this covers the 1830 census, but not the 1840 census or the 1860 census. He referenced all three.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #254
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,706
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #255
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    This is different from what you said. You said they didn't ask for race at all. Looks like your own "motor mouth" got the better of you.
    No, you are lying. What I said was, "the early censuses didn't even ASK what the race was of specific members of the household."

    At least try to be less obvious when you lie.

    1) If they list everyone in the household as white, what other conclusion can you draw?
    Good question! What do you do when the only choices given are "white, black, or mulatto"? American Indians in the Federal Decennial Census, 1790-1930

    According to the hobbyist's source, the assimilated Indians were generally listed as WHITE. But I guess that was open to some interpretation, as the link above suggests that on rare occasion people wrote in Indian.

    2) According to the article, she was mentioned by name, not the name of her husband.
    Then -- surprise surprise -- the author of the article was lying. It wasn't until 1870 that every person in the household was listed by name. And -- surprise surprise -- the author only mentions census results up to 1860!

    2) Even if you're right, this covers the 1830 census, but not the 1840 census or the 1860 census. He referenced all three.
    Wrong again, Sherlock. There were no relevant changes between the three censuses. Now, if he had listed the 1870 census that would be a completely different matter....

    Again -- probably not a great idea to take the word of a hobbyist geneologist writing on a partisan, right-wing website over the word of a well-respected, PROFESSIONAL geneologist. Do your own research.
    Last edited by AdamT; 05-12-12 at 03:21 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  6. #256
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    No, you are lying. What I said was, "the early censuses didn't even ASK what the race was of specific members of the household."

    At least try to be less obvious when you lie.
    Oh, YOU have the temerity to say something so rich? YOU? AdamT, perhaps the biggest liar about what people say on all of DP?

    If you meant by name, then perhaps you were right. But if you meant at all, which is how I took it, then you're wrong, and your own documents show it.


    Good question! What do you do when the only choices given are "white, black, or mulatto"? American Indians in the Federal Decennial Census, 1790-1930

    According to the hobbyist's source, the assimilated Indians were generally listed as WHITE. But I guess that was open to some interpretation, as the link above suggests that on rare occasion people wrote in Indian.
    Uh, no, according to some "comment."


    Then -- surprise surprise -- the author of the article was lying. It wasn't until 1870 that every person in the household was listed by name. And -- surprise surprise -- the author only mentions census results up to 1860!
    This assumes that she wasn't the head of the household for any of those years.


    Wrong again, Sherlock. There were no relevant changes between the three censuses. Now, if he had listed the 1870 census that would be a completely different matter....

    Again -- probably not a great idea to take the word of a hobbyist geneologist writing on a partisan, right-wing website over the word of a licenses, well-respected geneologist. Do your own research.
    Your "well-respected genealogist" can't produce the document which supposedly establishes her as a Cherokee. The hobbyist, however, produced a marriage license and marriage certificate which do no such thing, as well as a statement from someone who works in the office in question that at the time, there were no "applications," only the licenses and certificates.

    Turns out that the genealogist was relying not on an actual document, but a "family newsletter" from 2006:

    The Native American link extends to Warren's great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith, who is said to be described as Cherokee in an 1894 marriage license application. NEHGS gathered that information through a 2006 family newsletter, and says the original application cannot be located.
    Warren explains Native American listing was to meet people – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

    Here's the newsletter, linked to from Mother Jones (you know, that right-wing hit rag).

    http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kgissy/borakernl/34.pdf

    In it, there's a claim that Smith was "full-blooded Cherokee," but that's been shown not to be true in any case. This is what the respected genealogist was relying on.

    NEHGS, by the way, has apparently washed its hands of the issue.

    On May 10, a spokesman from the New England Historic Genealogical Society told the Boston Herald that neither the organization nor any of its employees would make further statements on the question of Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry. This statement came despite a decades-long tradition of providing genealogical reports on national and Massachusetts political figures.
    Email messages and phone calls to Mr. Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society were not returned.


    On Friday, May 11, Thomas Champoux of the New England Historic Genealogical Society responded by email to my request for an interview as follows:
    Michael, NEHGS is not conducting research on Elizabeth Warren nor are we commenting beyond what has already been covered by the media. Thank you.
    Tom Champoux
    NEHGS
    Now, all this having been said, I don't think Warren was necessarily lying about anything; she may well have believed the family story.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #257
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Oh, YOU have the temerity to say something so rich? YOU? AdamT, perhaps the biggest liar about what people say on all of DP?

    If you meant by name, then perhaps you were right. But if you meant at all, which is how I took it, then you're wrong, and your own documents show it.
    What I meant was obvious and you pretending that half of the sentence I wrote wasn't there just makes you seem like a bigger liar than you already did.


    Uh, no, according to some "comment."
    Uh, those "comments" were the source that your hobbyist cited in his article.


    This assumes that she wasn't the head of the household for any of those years.
    Yes, you and the hobbyist engage in a lot of assumptions.

    Your "well-respected genealogist" can't produce the document which supposedly establishes her as a Cherokee.
    He can't? Or do you mean that the amateurs trying to attack Warren haven't found the document?

    The hobbyist, however, produced a marriage license and marriage certificate which do no such thing, as well as a statement from someone who works in the office in question that at the time, there were no "applications," only the licenses and certificates.
    AFAIK it was never claimed that the license or certificate contained the relevant information. Did the geneologist make up the application? I guess it's possible but I don't see why he would.

    Turns out that the genealogist was relying not on an actual document, but a "family newsletter" from 2006:
    Uh, so the article claims, but I see absolutely no evidence that it came from a newsletter. Another wild-ass assumption.

    Warren explains Native American listing was to meet people – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

    Here's the newsletter, linked to from Mother Jones (you know, that right-wing hit rag).

    http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kgissy/borakernl/34.pdf
    And the connection between the newsletter and the geneologists conclusion is where? Oh yeah -- another assumption. There is no factual basis to conclude that the geneologist relied on the newsletter. Has it occurred to you that someone in the family may have the application, even if it isn't in the official records? Do you think that Warren hopped into a time machine and falsified a 2006 family newsletter in anticipation of a future Senate campaign?

    In it, there's a claim that Smith was "full-blooded Cherokee," but that's been shown not to be true in any case.
    No, it hasn't been shown to be the case, despite your continued reliance on thoroughly discredited "facts".

    This is what the respected genealogist was relying on.
    Again, so you claim without an iota of evidence.

    Now, all this having been said, I don't think Warren was necessarily lying about anything; she may well have believed the family story.
    Of course she did, and that is the point. But thanks for comical support of the swiftboaters.

    As I think I mentioned above, I think she didn't have any real evidence of her Indian heritage, but she was told of it from the time she was a child and assumed it was true. Personally I was told that I'm Jewish and I've always assumed it was true. Maybe I should hire a geneologist to check it out.
    Last edited by AdamT; 05-12-12 at 06:53 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  8. #258
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    What I meant was obvious and you pretending that half of the sentence I wrote wasn't there just makes you seem like a bigger liar than you already did.
    Well, I guess being such a liar yourself, you simply assume everyone else does. The cool thing about embracing the truth and good faith is that it makes you less cynical; you should give it a shot.



    Uh, those "comments" were the source that your hobbyist cited in his article.
    Show that he "cited" the "comments."



    Yes, you and the hobbyist engage in a lot of assumptions.
    You're the one making the assumption she wasn't the head of household; it stands to reason that if she's listed by name in the census, as he says she is (her married name), then according to your own sources on how the census was conducted, she must have been the head of household, because that's the only "name" which is listed.



    He can't? Or do you mean that the amateurs trying to attack Warren haven't found the document?
    Uh, no, the follow-up stories say NEHGS says they can't locate the document. You really should read.



    Uh, so the article claims, but I see absolutely no evidence that it came from a newsletter. Another wild-ass assumption.
    Except NEHGS saying it did? If you don't see it, you're blind.

    Here's the link again:

    Warren explains Native American listing was to meet people – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

    Here's the quote again:

    The New England Historic Genealogical Society provided CNN with initial research showing several members of Warren's maternal family claiming Cherokee heritage. The Native American link extends to Warren's great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith, who is said to be described as Cherokee in an 1894 marriage license application. NEHGS gathered that information through a 2006 family newsletter, and says the original application cannot be located.

    And the connection betweent the newsletter and the geneologists conclusion is where? Oh yeah -- another assumption.
    I backed it up within my post, as shown above. You apparently didn't read it very carefully.


    No, it hasn't been shown to be the case, despite your continued reliance on thoroughly discredited "facts".
    Which "facts" do you mean specifically, and how and where have they been "discredited"?




    Again, so you claim without an iota of evidence.
    And you repeat, although I gave you the evidence the post. And again in this one.

    This is pretty freakin' sad, Adam. You really should just give it up.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #259
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-16 @ 07:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,526

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Why does this elicit waves of laughter from you?
    Because it makes her 1/32 War Crinimal/Slaughterer of Native Americans.

    You know why this is absolutely hilarious but are playing dumb. She chose to check that box. To tout her "minority" status.

  10. #260
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Well, I guess being such a liar yourself, you simply assume everyone else does. The cool thing about embracing the truth and good faith is that it makes you less cynical; you should give it a shot.
    The cool thing about having your quotes right there ^^^^^ for everyone to see is that it's painfully obvious you were lying and can't even admit it when it could not be any clearer. Man up and admit it -- it won't kill you.

    Show that he "cited" the "comments."
    It was your link. Click on it.

    You're the one making the assumption she wasn't the head of household.
    Given that she was married, and that we're talking about the 19th century, the reasonable assumption is that her husband was the head of the household. But even if that wasn't the case, the questions asked in the census don't provide the purported answers that are claimed.

    Uh, no, the follow-up stories say NEHGS says they can't locate the document. You really should read.
    Fair enough -- I missed that.

    So ... any theory as to why someone in the Warren family lied about it in 2006 in a family newsletter?

    Which "facts" do you mean specifically, and how and where have they been "discredited"?
    I mean the claimed results from early census questions that couldn't possibly provide the information that the author claims he gleaned from them.

    This is pretty freakin' sad, Adam.
    It's beyond sad. It's a pathetic attempt to swiftboat a dedicated public servant who's infinitely brighter than that dimwit Scott Brown.
    Last edited by AdamT; 05-12-12 at 07:10 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

Page 26 of 75 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •