Senator Warren (aka Lie-awatha) not running for POTUS

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

With her high cheek bones and claim to being indian in New England could lead her to monetary gain if she claims to be from a tribe that owns casino's...they do split the profits.

The Cherokee tribe she thought she was a part of doesn't profit share from gambling, but I believe they do give preference if you want to work at a casino. For an adult with means there aren't any real financial benefits. Perhaps you could get a little scholarship money for a kid once they were admitted.

I believe most tribes that do share casino earning have a blood requirement that's pretty high. The Cherokee tribe will admit anyone that can prove lineage...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The Cherokee tribe she thought she was a part of doesn't profit share from gambling, but I believe they do give preference if you want to work at a casino. For an adult with means there aren't any real financial benefits. Perhaps you could get a little scholarship money for a kid once they were admitted.

I believe most tribes that do share casino earning have a blood requirement that's pretty high. The Cherokee tribe will admit anyone that can prove lineage...

-spence

Spence, a liberal, Ivy League school, when pooling through applicants for a cushy professor job, might give a nod to a member of a minority. Are you going to deny that with a straight face? Her university actually had her listed as a Native American, that's how the story broke.

Here's more evidence she's lying. When she ran for the Senate, the Republicans started accusing her of lying. She was in a close race. If she had evidence she was telling he truth, it stands to reason she would release it during the campaign, to silence those accusing her of lying.

For example, on another thread, you stated that Canada's rate of gun ownership is not high. I had the facts to prove you wrong, and I posted those facts with quite a lot of glee. I didn't sit there and let you continue to say I was wrong about Canada's gun ownership.

Why would she let them continue to call her a liar, especially if she wanted to win the election, if she could prove she was telling the truth? It makes no sense.

[justplugit]

A lie is a lie is a lie, period.
If a person can't be trusted in little things they can't be trusted in big things.
That goes for Hillary as well.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

but I believe they do give preference if you want to work at a casino.

-spence

So it's OK for your people to discriminate?

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by justplugit

A lie is a lie is a lie, period.
If a person can't be trusted in little things they can't be trusted in big things.
That goes for Hillary as well.

That goes for every last one of em.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Fauxcohontas is also on a rant lately about how unfair it is that college students have to carry so much debt. This, coming from a blowhard who pulled down $430k a year while teaching at Harvard. And she feels in no way responsible for the debt her students have to carry.

These people have no shame, and their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

blowhard

These people have no shame I would ask the same thing about you, and their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

NM

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

NM

Actually, I am full of shame. To quote George Costanza, who thought he was dying and Jerry asked him to at least die with dignity..."I lived my whole life in shame, why should I die with dignity!"

George Costanza, interestingky enough, was not as big a liar as Mizz Warren, aka Princess Spreading Bull...

[PaulS]

You make some good points but lose me when you start going off like that. She said she was told her whole life she was part Indian.

Let's talk about Mr Bundy. That was a good one.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So it's OK for your people to discriminate?

I'd think of it as more of a settlement than discrimination. It's legal...

-spence

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
So it's OK for your people to discriminate?

Originally Posted by spence

I'd think of it as more of a settlement than discrimination. It's legal...

-spence

So, in your opinion, certain degrees of discrimination are acceptable. If it is "more" of something other than discrimination, then the discrimination doesn't count. Notwithstanding that it is usually, in the eyes of the accused discriminator, more of something else, such as religious belief for instance, than discrimination. And yet, for the "good" of society in general, courts keep striking down that "more of something else" in favor of it just being discrimination. But, as it is your people who are discriminating in this case, I can see how you would be good with it.

That "settlement" thing is ominous. Is that in perpetuity? Are your people forever "legally" allowed to discriminate? Is it settled that those with traces of your people's blood will be allowed from now on to legally to discriminate? I can see why it would be "cool," as you put it, to be one of your people.

Concerning your "its legal ...". . . anti-discrimination "laws" are generally discriminatory. They discriminate against the personal proclivities of one party (even if they are "more" of something else) in favor of those of another party. Of course, such laws are, as you say, "more of a settlement than discrimination." They're legal . . .

If their is a problem with this sort of mixed legality, it is that there is no concrete principle behind the "laws." They are more opinion which shifts depending on the "justice" du jour. If your "people" benefit . . . hooray. If not, you should just go away.

Another problem is that as a country we are divided into separate opposing "people" rather than one comprised of unique individuals.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

She said she was told her whole life she was part Indian.

.

She selected "white" on previous job applications. And when asked why her current employer had her listed as Native American, she did not say "because I am a Native American, so that's what I told them." What she responded was "I don't know why they think I'm Native American". When the reporter showed her the application she filled out, where she checked off Native American, THAT'S when she said "oh yes, I told them that, but it's true so no worries."

Come on, Paul. I think you know what happened here. I don't care about her political affiliation. We all know this doesn't pass the common sense test.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
So it's OK for your people to discriminate?




So, in your opinion, certain degrees of discrimination are acceptable. If it is "more" of something other than discrimination, then the discrimination doesn't count. Notwithstanding that it is usually, in the eyes of the accused discriminator, more of something else, such as religious belief for instance, than discrimination. And yet, for the "good" of society in general, courts keep striking down that "more of something else" in favor of it just being discrimination. But, as it is your people who are discriminating in this case, I can see how you would be good with it.

That "settlement" thing is ominous. Is that in perpetuity? Are your people forever "legally" allowed to discriminate? Is it settled that those with traces of your people's blood will be allowed from now on to legally to discriminate? I can see why it would be "cool," as you put it, to be one of your people.

Concerning your "its legal ...". . . anti-discrimination "laws" are generally discriminatory. They discriminate against the personal proclivities of one party (even if they are "more" of something else) in favor of those of another party. Of course, such laws are, as you say, "more of a settlement than discrimination." They're legal . . .

If their is a problem with this sort of mixed legality, it is that there is no concrete principle behind the "laws." They are more opinion which shifts depending on the "justice" du jour. If your "people" benefit . . . hooray. If not, you should just go away.

Another problem is that as a country we are divided into separate opposing "people" rather than one comprised of unique individuals.

Now you got it. When Spence doesn't sympathize with whomever is on the receiving end, it's discrimination. When Spence does sympathize with whomever is on the receiving end, it's not discrimination, but rather, a "settlement."

Do you have it now, Detbuch? Does it make sense...

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, in your opinion, certain degrees of discrimination are acceptable. If it is "more" of something other than discrimination, then the discrimination doesn't count. Notwithstanding that it is usually, in the eyes of the accused discriminator, more of something else, such as religious belief for instance, than discrimination. And yet, for the "good" of society in general, courts keep striking down that "more of something else" in favor of it just being discrimination. But, as it is your people who are discriminating in this case, I can see how you would be good with it.

That "settlement" thing is ominous. Is that in perpetuity? Are your people forever "legally" allowed to discriminate? Is it settled that those with traces of your people's blood will be allowed from now on to legally to discriminate? I can see why it would be "cool," as you put it, to be one of your people.

Concerning your "its legal ...". . . anti-discrimination "laws" are generally discriminatory. They discriminate against the personal proclivities of one party (even if they are "more" of something else) in favor of those of another party. Of course, such laws are, as you say, "more of a settlement than discrimination." They're legal . . .

If their is a problem with this sort of mixed legality, it is that there is no concrete principle behind the "laws." They are more opinion which shifts depending on the "justice" du jour. If your "people" benefit . . . hooray. If not, you should just go away.

Another problem is that as a country we are divided into separate opposing "people" rather than one comprised of unique individuals.

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

Today we call it "affordable housing"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Great article in CNN today.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

Originally Posted by spence

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

No. I did not forget that. One of the most racist, brutal, and illegal acts committed by the U.S. Federal government was Andrew Jackson's refusal to follow the Supreme Court's opinion against the removal of the Indians from their homeland. The "Trail of Tears," as well as many other episodes and actions, We're dark marks in American history.

I have a spiritual harmony with what little I think I know about a small portion of pre-white native American culture. Within that limited spiritual sphere . . . much, I admit, is probably over romanticized . . . within it there is an almost overwhelming sympathy in me for an Indian way of life that was far more in harmony with the land and nature than the way we live today.

I would like a return to some portion of that way. And to infuse it with a return to a constitutional form of government. One, by the way, which may also have a native American contribution through the Iroquois Nation system's influence on the formation of the Constitution.

But that has little to do with discrimination. In my opinion, Indians have every right to discriminate in who they hire, or to whom they sell, or with whom they associate. I think African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans, also have those rights. And when government decides with whom and how we associate, and do business with, outside the restriction of anyone denying another those same rights, it is as dictatorial, unconstitutional, unethical, and immoral, as resettlement of Indians from their home to reservations. And it is as destructive to the human spirit in general as it was to the native American spirit. I don't make that as a material comparison, but as a political, philosophical, and ideological one.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Great article in CNN today.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

-spence

The lady who lied about her heritage so she could get a job at Harvard paying $430 large a year, bemoans the loss of the middle class. Maybe if she could accept $250k a year for teaching a few classes, more kids could afford college and get intto the middle class.

Earth to Lie-awatha...it's not hard to be middle class. Get good grades in high school, at least good enough to get into a state university. Major in engineering, accounting, or ANYTHING related to healthcare (physicians assistant, physical therapy, nursing, pharmacy), and you are middle class for llife.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Great article in CNN today.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

-spence

Oh, yeah, what a gem this marxist piece was...

"Washington took financial cops off the beat by slashing funding of our regulators, letting big banks load up on risk and target families with dangerous credit cards and mortgages. Washington also worked feverishly to cut taxes for those at the top, opening huge loopholes for big corporations and billionaires"

Once again, let's blame the woes of Main Street on the wealthy (a group that the author obviously belongs to, but it's OK that she's wealthy, because she's liberal and an Ivy Legue professor. Wealth is only evil, I suppose, when it is attained through capitalism, where every cent you have, is necessarily a penny you stole from some old widow?)

"Instead of supporting college kids who are trying to get an education, the government now uses them as a source of revenue, making billions of dollars in profits off student loans."

Oh, this takes the cake. This, from a jerk who made four hundred and thirty thousand a year to teach a few classes at Harvard? And she blames others for exploiting college students?

Spence, even you must see the naked hypocrisy shown by this awful shrew.


"Investments in roads and bridges have nearly ground to a halt
".

I thought the stimulus package was going to fund all those "shovel-ready projects". Where did that $700 billion go, anway? I know Obama spent the money, but we get any infastructure improvements? Not according to Fauxcohantus.

"We know how to strengthen the middle class in this country because we have done it before"

We haven't ever done it with so much global competition from massive, emerging economies like China and India. It's not that simple, and either she knows that (in which case she's lying), or she doesn't know it (in which case she's too stupid to be alive).

"We need to decide that our children -- not our biggest corporations -- are our first priority"

Yes, because as a conservative, of course I think corporations are mor eimportant than our children. I'm glad she reminded me of that. Where is this liberal concern for children when thos echildren are still in the womb?

Spence, this piece is nothing more than an asinine collection of tired, typical, classic, liberal talking points. Talk abuot how bad things are, get people fiired up about it, and tell them that (1) it's all Wall Street's fault, and (2) republicans want to keep feeding the Wall Street boogeyman, while Democrats want to restore tranquility.

Spence, how about this..consider the most liberal places in our country...big cities, and states like CT, RI, IL, cities like Detroit and Chicago...are those places better off aftr a generation of pure liberalism, or are they worse off? Let's see "Lies Through Her Teeth" write a piece telling me why liberalism has worked in CT, detroit, Chicago, and Rhode Island...

"We can repair the cracks in the middle class"

Obama sure hasn't done it in 5+ years. Median wages are down since he took office. He owns that, does he not? The stimulus was a spectacular failure.

[Jim in CT]

Senator Warren:""We need to decide that our children -- not our biggest corporations -- are our first priority""

So it's not possible to care about children, and support our free market capitalist system, at the same time? They are mutually exclusive? Thriving companies don't offer anything good for our children, like services and jobs?

Earth to Lieawatha and Spence...I don't know how much Wall Street is hurting my kids (though of course we need regulations). I know exactly how much my kids are being adversely effected by the Democrats' refusal to address Social Security and Medicare. I know exactly how my kids will be impacted by Obama's running up the debt, and I know how my kids will be impacted by the liberal notion that anyone in a public union deserves to be wealthy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No. I did not forget that. One of the most racist, brutal, and illegal acts committed by the U.S. Federal government was Andrew Jackson's refusal to follow the Supreme Court's opinion against the removal of the Indians from their homeland. The "Trail of Tears," as well as many other episodes and actions, We're dark marks in American history.

Agree.

I have a spiritual harmony with what little I think I know about a small portion of pre-white native American culture. Within that limited spiritual sphere . . . much, I admit, is probably over romanticized . . . within it there is an almost overwhelming sympathy in me for an Indian way of life that was far more in harmony with the land and nature than the way we live today.

Yes, and no WI-FI either.

I would like a return to some portion of that way. And to infuse it with a return to a constitutional form of government. One, by the way, which may also have a native American contribution through the Iroquois Nation system's influence on the formation of the Constitution.

It begs the question if sometimes the original "constitutional form of government" hasn't been over romanticized as well. If I remember correctly it didn't last all that long...

But that has little to do with discrimination. In my opinion, Indians have every right to discriminate in who they hire, or to whom they sell, or with whom they associate. I think African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans, also have those rights. And when government decides with whom and how we associate, and do business with, outside the restriction of anyone denying another those same rights, it is as dictatorial, unconstitutional, unethical, and immoral, as resettlement of Indians from their home to reservations. And it is as destructive to the human spirit in general as it was to the native American spirit. I don't make that as a material comparison, but as a political, philosophical, and ideological one.

Good you recognized that. In theory piece of paper is the same as a pizza, from a certain perspective...

I think the Native American situation is a bit different in that there's some level of sovereignty still in effect. I have the understanding that tribes have some latitude under Federal law to protect the economic interests of the tribe. At this point I'm not sure how it's discrimination rather than a matter of internal affairs.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It begs the question if sometimes the original "constitutional form of government" hasn't been over romanticized as well. If I remember correctly it didn't last all that long...

Actually, it lasted, in the main, for about 150 years. Toward the latter part of that time, the last twenty or thirty years, which also included a strong period during the Coolidge and Harding years, it still held sway but was beginning to be eroded by progressive strengthening of the office of President, especially by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Presidential power grew from there to a near imperial strength with FDR. But even through those years, the "original" Constitution was still a powerful force of law. But what was gaining, if not in strength, but in progressive, anti-originalist influence, was the Supreme Court. This was a part of the "brilliant" (I would say nefarious) strategy of the progressive acolytes--to pack courts with progressive minded judges who favored unhampered centralized administrative solutions for (what they considered) societies ills rather than leaving it to less regulated and (in their minds) unpredictable evolution.

And, though it is hanging in by a bare thread, the Constitution still lasts today.

Another part of that strategy, of course, was to transform, first, higher education to their way of thinking, and eventually the entire educational system. The federal government's intrusion into the educational sphere used early land-grants as models. Government largesse was carrot for the stick of government regulation. The Federal government has nearly continuously expanded its role in education with "investments" accompanied by regulations well beyond anything imagined by the original Founders, nor provided for in the original Constitution. That effort continues with, for example, the current drive to implant Common Core.

From the educational system comes the judges and lawyers and politicians and the progressive (radical) community organizers, and all the know-it-all "smart" thinkers, academics, journalists, media propagandists, and just plain regular folks who have been convinced that they, The People, are helpless flotsam who must be protected from the powerful one percenters or ten percenters, or from the vicissitudes of the inevitable events of history against which they have no influence.

But progressivism has progressed well beyond even what the original progressives intended. Centralization of power has become so nearly absolute that government is as much the big, bad, boogeyman that they feared, and less of the solution they envisioned to the boogeyman problem.

This was predictable. They had reckoned that weakly regulated evolution would be unpredictable, and all-powerful centralized administration as the method to predictable solutions. But it was the Founders who saw that centralized power would predictably lead to despotism, tyranny, and absolutism. The Constitution they created was the safeguard against the very tyranny to which progressivism evolves, but against which it claims to fight.

So, in short, the Constitution has not been over romanticized.

Quote by detbuch in previous post:
But that has little to do with discrimination. In my opinion, Indians have every right to discriminate in who they hire, or to whom they sell, or with whom they associate. I think African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans, also have those rights. And when government decides with whom and how we associate, and do business with, outside the restriction of anyone denying another those same rights, it is as dictatorial, unconstitutional, unethical, and immoral, as resettlement of Indians from their home to reservations. And it is as destructive to the human spirit in general as it was to the native American spirit. I don't make that as a material comparison, but as a political, philosophical, and ideological one.

Good you recognized that. In theory piece of paper is the same as a pizza, from a certain perspective...

I am not aware of a theory wherein a piece of paper is the same as a pizza. And unless this theory is fleshed out, it sounds stupid, and doesn't interest me. If it is expounded on and makes internal or external sense, it would be interesting and maybe even worth of discussion or admiration. And, sure, as in all things, especially in your relativistic world, everything depends on perspective. If you're referring to what I said in the above quote as a peace of paper being the same as a pizza, you need to flesh that out for it to be relevant to this discussion. And if the perspective is from that of a fool, then so what? And between a piece of paper and a pizza, per se, it depends on if you're hungry or in need of information. They both could be entertaining. Or make you sick. And so on . . . . . . Benghazzzzzzzzziiiiii . . . . . . . .

I think the Native American situation is a bit different in that there's some level of sovereignty still in effect. I have the understanding that tribes have some latitude under Federal law to protect the economic interests of the tribe. At this point I'm not sure how it's discrimination rather than a matter of internal affairs.

-spence

Ahhh . . . yes. Sovereignty. Local or personal sovereignty is protected from government intervention by . . . what? Oh yeah! The CONSTITUTION. OOOhhh . . . but Federal law . . . that could be another matter. If the Federal law is bound by the Constitution, and the Federal government administrates within those bounds, then your understanding of that latitude prevails. If, however, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, equal to a pizza, depending on the perspective of the current administration . . . say a progressive one with a court which adjudicates progressively . . . then that centralized administrative Federal government need only concoct what could be viewed as, even remotely, a rational basis, to vacate your once hallowed sovereignty, and command you to do what it considers necessary to achieve its "rational" goal . . . for the good of all, including, though you may not immediately see the goodness, YOU.

And isn't discrimination always a matter of internal affairs? You are not allowed to intrude in my internal affairs, nor I into yours, without consent? Constitutionally speaking, so long as I don't deny you the right to your internal affairs?

In your relativistic pizza/paper progressively favoring the efficiency of central power over individual rights perspective you may "think the Native American situation is a bit different." But from a more universal individual human rights perspective which goes beyond special rights for special folks, the difference is irrelevant.