• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

AdamT said:
Let's just deal with that idiocy on its own. First, you don't understant what "appeal to authority" means, notwithstanding the fact that I've explained it to you several times. You seem to think that any appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, which is just immeasurably stupid. In fact, it is perfectly legitimate argument to appeal to authority as long as the authority cited is in fact a legitimate authority for the purpose cited.

I would go on but you need to be more specific about WTF you are claiming. For example, WTF does "it" refer to in your second sentence? What is the "tertiary source" you claim that I cited? How specifically do you think I engaged in a "double 'attack the messenger'" fallacy? What messengers did I attack and why do you think it was a fallacy?

Stop spewing meaningless jargon to try to make yourself sound smart (it has the opposite effect) and say what you mean.
Click to expand...
Everything I listed fits. We're done here.
 
AdamT said:
And the inevitable punt....

:rofl
Click to expand...
Nope, you aren't being honest and getting dangerously close to personal attacks. There is nothing of substance left to discuss with you.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Nope, you aren't being honest and getting dangerously close to personal attacks. There is nothing of substance left to discuss with you.
Click to expand...

I'm simply asking you to explain what you're trying to say.
 
Fishstyx said:
Because it makes her 1/32 War Crinimal/Slaughterer of Native Americans. :lamo
Click to expand...

Which native Americans did Elizabeth Warren slaughter exactly?
 
and what would be funny about that?
 
haymarket said:
Which native Americans did Elizabeth Warren slaughter exactly?
Click to expand...

Oh, so for a liberal, it has to be a direct link to the suffering, but if it is a conservative anything in the family tree is fair game....I see how that works....


j-mac
 
haymarket said:
Which native Americans did Elizabeth Warren slaughter exactly?
Click to expand...

Well...since she is 1/32 Cherokee...AND the Cherokee warred against Shawnee, Yuchi, Catawba, Chickasaw, etal...by extension Elizabeth Warren is a war criminal/slaughtered them.

This same extension is prevalent in the modern discussions about slavery. There is no one living in America today that owned slaves but some are still ostracized for their ancestors owning them, again by extension (which are both idiotic propositions IMO) I personally believe this is part of the underlying foundation for modern racism.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, so for a liberal, it has to be a direct link to the suffering, but if it is a conservative anything in the family tree is fair game....I see how that works....


j-mac
Click to expand...

When you write stuff like that - do you even know the point you believe you were trying to make when you started to hit the keys?
 
Dickieboy said:
Well...since she is 1/32 Cherokee...AND the Cherokee warred against Shawnee, Yuchi, Catawba, Chickasaw, etal...by extension Elizabeth Warren is a war criminal/slaughtered them.

This same extension is prevalent in the modern discussions about slavery. There is no one living in America today that owned slaves but some are still ostracized for their ancestors owning them, again by extension (which are both idiotic propositions IMO) I personally believe this is part of the underlying foundation for modern racism.
Click to expand...

By extension?!?!?!?!?!?!?

This constant right wing trying to justify past history which deserves no justification is not at all becoming.
 
haymarket said:
When you write stuff like that - do you even know the point you believe you were trying to make when you started to hit the keys?
Click to expand...

Sure, do you know that when you write stuff like this that you are right on the playbook of Sol Alinsky? Good Job on your predictability.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Sure, do you know that when you write stuff like this that you are right on the playbook of Sol Alinsky? Good Job on your predictability.


j-mac
Click to expand...

OH MY GAWD!!!! You just invoked the name of the High Patron Saint of all that is good and holy........... sorry ........ ALL That Is GOOD and HOLY.

How dare you. I bet you even know that of us in the Leon Trotsky Marching Society read Alinsky for at least 90 minutes each day.

Boy oh boy but you really know how to cut us to the quick.
 
haymarket said:
OH MY GAWD!!!! You just invoked the name of the High Patron Saint of all that is good and holy........... sorry ........ ALL That Is GOOD and HOLY.

How dare you. I bet you even know that of us in the Leon Trotsky Marching Society read Alinsky for at least 90 minutes each day.

Boy oh boy but you really know how to cut us to the quick.
Click to expand...


heh, heh, heh....That actually made me chuckle.....but none the less the tactic is documented and quite real among leftists, and hard left today. It is transparent and a foolish semantic game. Much like this last post of yours here.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
heh, heh, heh....That actually made me chuckle.....but none the less the tactic is documented and quite real among leftists, and hard left today. It is transparent and a foolish semantic game. Much like this last post of yours here.


j-mac
Click to expand...

What 'tactic' would that be?

You see, in truth I have never read Alinsky. I did debate in college for two years. Perhaps you are confusing 'tactics'?
 
haymarket said:
By extension?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Click to expand...

Yes, extension or #1 Die Erweiterung. I'm sure you learned that stratagem in your two years of debate.

This constant right wing trying to justify past history which deserves no justification is not at all becoming.
Click to expand...

HUH?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
What 'tactic' would that be?

You see, in truth I have never read Alinsky. I did debate in college for two years. Perhaps you are confusing 'tactics'?
Click to expand...

Er...uh, that would be tactic #38 Sei persönlich, beleidigend, grob also known as argumentum ad personam but again I'm sure you learned that in your two years of college debate.
 
haymarket said:
Yes, I saw this was the early lead on the Drudge report today.
Click to expand...

Does this bother you?

Personally, as I understand it the correlation of the ‘advancement’ of Warren and her heritage is tenuous at best. If she was stating her heritage based on what she was raised to believe by her parents/grandparents I see no fault in her. Are we to presume that each should investigate a claim longstanding in one’s family history before promoting it? Especially if there is not consequential ramifications…other than one’s ability to claim ‘she lied’? Non story in my book.
 
If Warren can claim (with a straight face) 1/35th Cherokee... we all can claim some inane fraction and some can claim minority status. I'm sure such a thing is unintended, but really.... Warren couldn't win an election without it? That spells desperation.
 
Ockham said:
If Warren can claim (with a straight face) 1/35th Cherokee... we all can claim some inane fraction and some can claim minority status. I'm sure such a thing is unintended, but really.... Warren couldn't win an election without it? That spells desperation.
Click to expand...

Huh? She wasn't using this in the election. It's her opponents who are trying to swift boat her with it. So yeah, it does smack a bit of desperation.
 
AdamT said:
Huh? She wasn't using this in the election. It's her opponents who are trying to swift boat her with it. So yeah, it does smack a bit of desperation.
Click to expand...

According to this article, the Boston Herald was citing a 1996 Harvard Crimson article about diversity... which brought it to light. You're saying that the Boston Herald is "swift boating" Warren?

ABC News said:
The story kicked off Friday when the Boston Herald reported on an article that ran in the Harvard Crimson in 1996 about students’ concerns regarding a lack of diversity among the school’s faculty. In the story, Warren, who serves as the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard’s Law School, was cited as Native American. Warren’s identification as Native American pre-dates her time at Harvard.

Law School directories from the Association of American Law Schools from 1986-1995 list Warren as a minority law professor. During this time Warren taught at the University of Texas School of Law and the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Click to expand...

Granted, Warren didn't bring it up herself, nor is Brown using it to pummel Warren in the close race in Mass. Is there some new take on the vast right wing conspiracy to take Warren out? Maybe this is a teachable moment. We all, as Americans, should claim 1/20,000th part African American, as the cradle of man started in Africa. Therefore, we're ALL minorities. :mrgreen:


One correction: I stated 1/35th.... it was reported as 1/32nd. My mistake.
 
Ockham said:
According to this article, the Boston Herald was citing a 1996 Harvard Crimson article about diversity... which brought it to light. You're saying that the Boston Herald is "swift boating" Warren?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. Apparently you are confusing the right-wing Herald with the left-of-center Globe.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, that's right. Apparently you are confusing the right-wing Herald with the left-of-center Globe.
Click to expand...
Right, left, it doesn't matter. Warren is a ditz who only the radical left crowd could take seriously. She's a poorer choice than that Conklin woman, even in a liberal Massachusetts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom