Before the crash she blamed on speculators, Elizabeth Warren made a bundle by flipping houses

[TexasTiger 12,953]

There are a ton of silly assertions on this thread. When Harvard has a vacancy they recruit a small pool of the top scholars in the field they are seeking.

They thought it notable enough to start promoting that fact about her as their first minority female professor.

AFTER coming under fire, they used it. No evidence it played a role in recruiting. She was one of the top cited scholars in her specialty.

LOL...you folks live to carry water for these lying scumbags

Says the Trump supporter. Like Trump, you attack me, but can't attack the facts I present.

[AURaptor 1,125]

You doubt that Liz Warren has claimed to be of Indian ancestry ?

I doubt your reading comprehension.

Guess you do then.

Confirmed your lack of comprehension. What she claimed is not in dispute.

Then what? She's offered no verification of said claim, yet tried to benefit from her " status ". This minutiae you're wading in serves no purpose

[TexasTiger 12,953]

You doubt that Liz Warren has claimed to be of Indian ancestry ?

I doubt your reading comprehension.

Guess you do then.

Confirmed your lack of comprehension. What she claimed is not in dispute.

Then what? She's offered no verification of said claim, yet tried to benefit from her " status ". This minutiae you're wading in serves no purpose

There is zero actual proof of an attempt to benefit. She wasn't a marginal student seeking admission to a school that seemed out of reach. She was a highly regarded law professor sought for her accomplishments. She didn't check a box on an application in hopes of standing out. She was known to Harvard due to her accomplishments.

Bush was admitted to Harvard because of his family. That bothers none of the folks beating this dead horse. Warren is an accomplished academic that has proven herself for decades. From UPenn to Harvard is not a move that defies explanation.

[AURaptor 1,125]

There is zero actual proof of an attempt to benefit. She wasn't a marginal student seeking admission to a school that seemed out of reach. She was a highly regarded law professor sought for her accomplishments. She didn't check a box on an application in hopes of standing out. She was known to Harvard due to her accomplishments.

Bush was admitted to Harvard because of his family. That bothers none of the folks beating this dead horse. Warren is an accomplished academic that has proven herself for decades. From UPenn to Harvard is not a move that defies explanation.

Sounds like a bammer type of excuse....

And what's Bush have to do with - ANYTHING ? Oh, that's right. ZERO.

[cole256 17,084]

There is zero actual proof of an attempt to benefit. She wasn't a marginal student seeking admission to a school that seemed out of reach. She was a highly regarded law professor sought for her accomplishments. She didn't check a box on an application in hopes of standing out. She was known to Harvard due to her accomplishments.

Bush was admitted to Harvard because of his family. That bothers none of the folks beating this dead horse. Warren is an accomplished academic that has proven herself for decades. From UPenn to Harvard is not a move that defies explanation.

Sounds like a bammer type of excuse....

And what's Bush have to do with - ANYTHING ? Oh, that's right. ZERO.

Knew that was coming. Didn't I call it?

[japantiger 4,051]

Its not the reason for her success, but it did open doors not afforded others with similar qualifications. It clearly propelled her career.

"It clearly propelled her career"? That's BS. This is a classic mountain from a molehill. Just add a prominent politician and the right wing reverb machine. (And yes, both sides do it. :-\ )

Warren never offered up more than "family lore" (putting her in a huge class of people claiming Native American heritage - mostly Cherokee). If this was such a big deal for Harvard they would have wanted to see some additional proof.

What do the principals say?

The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

"'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

And that's the second arena where an absence of evidence should have some weight. If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.

The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

And that's the second arena where an absence of evidence should have some weight. If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.

http://www.theatlant...or-what/257415/

Frankly Homey the Herald has disqualified itself as a source in this story. For months prior to the election between her and Walker, the Herald published story after story defending and supporting her story. Front page; bold defenses of Fauxahontas. Suddenly, after the election; they retracted....after the election...now, they didn't retract on page one where they posted their blistering defenses of her...no, they retracted in the corrections section (the for the record section); well back in the paper and never publicly owned up to their duplicity in the lie. So you'll pardon me if I don't buy statements by the Herald claiming to hold the key to Warren's bona-fides. The facts remain she was listed at both Penn and Harvard as minority faculty....and do you really think the Herald would publish a statement from someone at Havard that said; "hell yes, the only way we could claim to have a native american staffer was to use the lying sack of s*** Warren's bogus claim"...of course not...those noble educators at Harvard would never lie (well, excepting Warren, apparently, of course) to further their aims or to try to bolster their reputation or political standing....why, it is pure coincidence that their only native American staffer happened to be Warren...shear coincidence...and yet, you just continue to defend the indefensible...

[AURaptor 1,125]

Knew that was coming. Didn't I call it?

Call what ? Bush being used as a phony comparison ?

ETA - No, you did NOT call it. Nice post facto try though.

[TexasTiger 12,953]

There is zero actual proof of an attempt to benefit. She wasn't a marginal student seeking admission to a school that seemed out of reach. She was a highly regarded law professor sought for her accomplishments. She didn't check a box on an application in hopes of standing out. She was known to Harvard due to her accomplishments.

Bush was admitted to Harvard because of his family. That bothers none of the folks beating this dead horse. Warren is an accomplished academic that has proven herself for decades. From UPenn to Harvard is not a move that defies explanation.

Sounds like a bammer type of excuse....

And what's Bush have to do with - ANYTHING ? Oh, that's right. ZERO.

Your hypocrisy.

[TexasTiger 12,953]

Its not the reason for her success, but it did open doors not afforded others with similar qualifications. It clearly propelled her career.

"It clearly propelled her career"? That's BS. This is a classic mountain from a molehill. Just add a prominent politician and the right wing reverb machine. (And yes, both sides do it. :-\/> )

Warren never offered up more than "family lore" (putting her in a huge class of people claiming Native American heritage - mostly Cherokee). If this was such a big deal for Harvard they would have wanted to see some additional proof.

What do the principals say?

The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

"'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

And that's the second arena where an absence of evidence should have some weight. If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.

The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

And that's the second arena where an absence of evidence should have some weight. If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.

http://www.theatlant...or-what/257415/

Frankly Homey the Herald has disqualified itself as a source in this story. For months prior to the election between her and Walker, the Herald published story after story defending and supporting her story. Front page; bold defenses of Fauxahontas. Suddenly, after the election; they retracted....after the election...now, they didn't retract on page one where they posted their blistering defenses of her...no, they retracted in the corrections section (the for the record section); well back in the paper and never publicly owned up to their duplicity in the lie. So you'll pardon me if I don't buy statements by the Herald claiming to hold the key to Warren's bona-fides. The facts remain she was listed at both Penn and Harvard as minority faculty....and do you really think the Herald would publish a statement from someone at Havard that said; "hell yes, the only way we could claim to have a native american staffer was to use the lying sack of s*** Warren's bogus claim"...of course not...those noble educators at Harvard would never lie (well, excepting Warren, apparently, of course) to further their aims or to try to bolster their reputation or political standing....why, it is pure coincidence that their only native American staffer happened to be Warren...shear coincidence...and yet, you just continue to defend the indefensible...

In other words, JT dismisses the only folks with first-hand knowledge because of source. Irrational hatred does that for you.

[AURaptor 1,125]

There is zero actual proof of an attempt to benefit. She wasn't a marginal student seeking admission to a school that seemed out of reach. She was a highly regarded law professor sought for her accomplishments. She didn't check a box on an application in hopes of standing out. She was known to Harvard due to her accomplishments.

Bush was admitted to Harvard because of his family. That bothers none of the folks beating this dead horse. Warren is an accomplished academic that has proven herself for decades. From UPenn to Harvard is not a move that defies explanation.

Sounds like a bammer type of excuse....

And what's Bush have to do with - ANYTHING ? Oh, that's right. ZERO.

Your hypocrisy.

So, Bush is a red herring, but there's evidence to support your position.

Not so bammerish after all

[cole256 17,084]

Knew that was coming. Didn't I call it?

Call what ? Bush being used as a phony comparison ?

ETA - No, you did NOT call it. Nice post facto try though.

Absolutely called it. It didn't take anytime at all. Use somebody that you love to make a point your reply, we're not talking about Bush are we? But you bring up something like that in a debate it's fine lol.

You're a big hypocrite, and what's worse is watching you weasel out of it. You should just thank me for the correction and keep moving

[AURaptor 1,125]

You called nothing, Carl.

No where in these 4 pages of this thread did you " call " anything. You didn't even post before I had. Certainly said nothing about Bush or Bammer, which is what I must assume you're talking about, as you woin't even man up and cite SPECIFICALLY what you " called ".

[cole256 17,084]

Smh then you're a big liar. Then your old a$$ think calling me a black cartoon character means something lol. Could you make yourself anymore of a joke!

[cole256 17,084]

There is zero actual proof of an attempt to benefit. She wasn't a marginal student seeking admission to a school that seemed out of reach. She was a highly regarded law professor sought for her accomplishments. She didn't check a box on an application in hopes of standing out. She was known to Harvard due to her accomplishments.

Bush was admitted to Harvard because of his family. That bothers none of the folks beating this dead horse. Warren is an accomplished academic that has proven herself for decades. From UPenn to Harvard is not a move that defies explanation.

Sounds like a bammer type of excuse....

And what's Bush have to do with - ANYTHING ? Oh, that's right. ZERO.

Knew that was coming. Didn't I call it?

" Drag a $100 bill through a trailer camp and there's no telling what you will find " - James Carvill, on Paula Jones.

Where's the outrage ?

Ever ask a similar question like this to you, your reply is so and so has nothing to do with this or we're talking about so and so this is a distraction

Just like clockwork. What did it take a day? Two? LMAO

[AURaptor 1,125]

Sad that you think that's calling anything. Completely different post, topic, thread, day...

Just wow. How desperate are you for a " win "?

[cole256 17,084]

You're so stupid.Different post? Topic? Thread? Day? What did you make up some rules to a made up game? Lol. Like I said you're a hypocrite who will say and do stuff that you frown upon if it's done to you. Period. What you can say stuff that you try to avoid said to you as long as it's a certain thread? Your hypocrisy is amazing

[AURaptor 1,125]

Lol

Little Carl can't win.

[cole256 17,084]

Lol are you 60 yet? Lol. Why don't you ever mention your wife or your kids? Lol. What do you do? Oh my bad I forgot you're Lord of the political board on an Auburn football site LOL. Very accomplished

[japantiger 4,051]

Its not the reason for her success, but it did open doors not afforded others with similar qualifications. It clearly propelled her career.

"It clearly propelled her career"? That's BS. This is a classic mountain from a molehill. Just add a prominent politician and the right wing reverb machine. (And yes, both sides do it. :-\/> )

Warren never offered up more than "family lore" (putting her in a huge class of people claiming Native American heritage - mostly Cherokee). If this was such a big deal for Harvard they would have wanted to see some additional proof.

What do the principals say?

The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

"'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

And that's the second arena where an absence of evidence should have some weight. If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.

The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

And that's the second arena where an absence of evidence should have some weight. If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.

http://www.theatlant...or-what/257415/

Frankly Homey the Herald has disqualified itself as a source in this story. For months prior to the election between her and Walker, the Herald published story after story defending and supporting her story. Front page; bold defenses of Fauxahontas. Suddenly, after the election; they retracted....after the election...now, they didn't retract on page one where they posted their blistering defenses of her...no, they retracted in the corrections section (the for the record section); well back in the paper and never publicly owned up to their duplicity in the lie. So you'll pardon me if I don't buy statements by the Herald claiming to hold the key to Warren's bona-fides. The facts remain she was listed at both Penn and Harvard as minority faculty....and do you really think the Herald would publish a statement from someone at Havard that said; "hell yes, the only way we could claim to have a native american staffer was to use the lying sack of s*** Warren's bogus claim"...of course not...those noble educators at Harvard would never lie (well, excepting Warren, apparently, of course) to further their aims or to try to bolster their reputation or political standing....why, it is pure coincidence that their only native American staffer happened to be Warren...shear coincidence...and yet, you just continue to defend the indefensible...

In other words, JT dismisses the only folks with first-hand knowledge because of source. Irrational hatred does that for you.

Well, almost...I dismiss anything published by the Herald on this topic given their duplicity. They lied repeatedly and then when forced to own up; they buried it ....which is really no admission at all...so, unless they can give me a tape recorded quote from Jesus on the topic, I'm pretty much gonna dismiss, out of hand, anything they say on the topic. Which is what most humans do when lied to by someone repeatedly....so,hey, maybe you choose to believe a serial liar regarding the history of another serial liar...but, as Dad used to say, don't try to piss down my back and tell me it's rainin.....

[TexasTiger 12,953]

Its not the reason for her success, but it did open doors not afforded others with similar qualifications. It clearly propelled her career.

"It clearly propelled her career"? That's BS. This is a classic mountain from a molehill. Just add a prominent politician and the right wing reverb machine. (And yes, both sides do it. :-\/> )

Warren never offered up more than "family lore" (putting her in a huge class of people claiming Native American heritage - mostly Cherokee). If this was such a big deal for Harvard they would have wanted to see some additional proof.

What do the principals say?

The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

"'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

And that's the second arena where an absence of evidence should have some weight. If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.

The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

And that's the second arena where an absence of evidence should have some weight. If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.

http://www.theatlant...or-what/257415/

Frankly Homey the Herald has disqualified itself as a source in this story. For months prior to the election between her and Walker, the Herald published story after story defending and supporting her story. Front page; bold defenses of Fauxahontas. Suddenly, after the election; they retracted....after the election...now, they didn't retract on page one where they posted their blistering defenses of her...no, they retracted in the corrections section (the for the record section); well back in the paper and never publicly owned up to their duplicity in the lie. So you'll pardon me if I don't buy statements by the Herald claiming to hold the key to Warren's bona-fides. The facts remain she was listed at both Penn and Harvard as minority faculty....and do you really think the Herald would publish a statement from someone at Havard that said; "hell yes, the only way we could claim to have a native american staffer was to use the lying sack of s*** Warren's bogus claim"...of course not...those noble educators at Harvard would never lie (well, excepting Warren, apparently, of course) to further their aims or to try to bolster their reputation or political standing....why, it is pure coincidence that their only native American staffer happened to be Warren...shear coincidence...and yet, you just continue to defend the indefensible...

In other words, JT dismisses the only folks with first-hand knowledge because of source. Irrational hatred does that for you.

Well, almost...I dismiss anything published by the Herald on this topic given their duplicity. They lied repeatedly and then when forced to own up; they buried it ....which is really no admission at all...so, unless they can give me a tape recorded quote from Jesus on the topic, I'm pretty much gonna dismiss, out of hand, anything they say on the topic. Which is what most humans do when lied to by someone repeatedly....so,hey, maybe you choose to believe a serial liar regarding the history of another serial liar...but, as Dad used to say, don't try to piss down my back and tell me it's rainin.....

The article links to the Crimson--- has it lied to you repeatedly, too?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/5/8/warren-maginn-faust-letter/

[AUDub 11,153]

Well, almost...I dismiss anything published by the Herald on this topic given their duplicity. They lied repeatedly and then when forced to own up; they buried it ....which is really no admission at all...so, unless they can give me a tape recorded quote from Jesus on the topic, I'm pretty much gonna dismiss, out of hand, anything they say on the topic. Which is what most humans do when lied to by someone repeatedly....so,hey, maybe you choose to believe a serial liar regarding the history of another serial liar...but, as Dad used to say, don't try to piss down my back and tell me it's rainin.....

The article links to the Crimson--- has it lied to you repeatedly, too?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/5/8/warren-maginn-faust-letter/

Ross Douthat wrote for them, so they've lied to me.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Lol are you 60 yet? Lol. Why don't you ever mention your wife or your kids? Lol. What do you do? Oh my bad I forgot you're Lord of the political board on an Auburn football site LOL. Very accomplished

Still tryin' to play, huh ? Give it up, Carl. While you're still not too far behind.

See, when you call something, you have to actually put it in some sort of context. Not some vague , non specific claim, only to be spelled out later on, AFTER the fact.

" A basketball team is going to win the title ! You watch ! "

Umm, which team ? When ?

Cleveland ? OK City ? Golden State ? You can't wait until the games are over and then just declare " Called it ! I win ! " .

My god, could you be an more pathetic ?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Smh then you're a big liar. Then your old a$$ think calling me a black cartoon character means something lol. Could you make yourself anymore of a joke!

There there Carl. It'll be o.k.

Where have I lied ? Oh, right. You're such a princess , you don't have to actually show where, you just get to make the claim, and voila !

And yes, my old ass " think " calling you a black cartoon ( what ever that's suppose mean ) ...

It's light hearted humor, kid. Get over yourself.

But it's funny, you mock someone for being old ( which I'm not ) , and then expect others to treat you with some level of common decency, as if you're entitled to it ? Yeah, right. So, anyone older than... you ? Or what ever age, is " old ass " , and not worthy of living ? Think about that, as there are others my age and older on here.

But to the issue, you were wrong, twice, and it's bugging you still that someone called you out on it. Especially as that someone is me, huh ?

You were wrong bout the comparison between Rush and James Carville. And You're completely , laughingly wrong about " calling " anything.

But hey, if your little ego is so fragile, ... then by golly, just call it a win for yourself, and go get that ice cream w/ sprinkles on it !!!

You're a winner !!

[homersapien 11,390]

My family lore included distant Native American heritage. Doubt I could prove it, but I grew up hearing it from older family members. I doubt this is that uncommon.

It's common enough to be a cliche'.

And it's always Cherokee

Read the Atlantic article.

[homersapien 11,390]

Its not the reason for her success, but it did open doors not afforded others with similar qualifications. It clearly propelled her career.

"It clearly propelled her career"? That's BS. This is a classic mountain from a molehill. Just add a prominent politician and the right wing reverb machine. (And yes, both sides do it. :-\/> )

Warren never offered up more than "family lore" (putting her in a huge class of people claiming Native American heritage - mostly Cherokee). If this was such a big deal for Harvard they would have wanted to see some additional proof.

What do the principals say?

The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

"'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

And that's the second arena where an absence of evidence should have some weight. If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.

The head of the committee that brought Warren to Harvard Law School said talk of Native American ties was not a factor in recruiting her to the prestigious institution. Reported the Boston Herald in April in its first story on Warren's ancestry claim: "Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn't recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.

'It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty,' he said."

He repeated himself this week, telling the Herald: "In spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the story continues to circulate that Elizabeth Warren enjoyed some kind of affirmative action leg-up in her hiring as a full professor by the Harvard Law School. The innuendo is false."

"I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned," he added.

That view was echoed by Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe, who voted to tenure Warren and was also involved in recruiting her.

"Elizabeth Warren's heritage had absolutely no role in the decision to recruit her to Harvard Law School," he told the Crimson. "Our decision was entirely based on her extraordinary expertise and legendary teaching ability. This whole dispute is fabricated out of whole cloth and has no connection to reality."

And that's the second arena where an absence of evidence should have some weight. If there's no easily located evidence that Warren has Native American ancestry, there's also no evidence Warren used her family story to boost herself into a Harvard job.

http://www.theatlant...or-what/257415/

Frankly Homey the Herald has disqualified itself as a source in this story. For months prior to the election between her and Walker, the Herald published story after story defending and supporting her story. Front page; bold defenses of Fauxahontas. Suddenly, after the election; they retracted....after the election...now, they didn't retract on page one where they posted their blistering defenses of her...no, they retracted in the corrections section (the for the record section); well back in the paper and never publicly owned up to their duplicity in the lie. So you'll pardon me if I don't buy statements by the Herald claiming to hold the key to Warren's bona-fides. The facts remain she was listed at both Penn and Harvard as minority faculty....and do you really think the Herald would publish a statement from someone at Havard that said; "hell yes, the only way we could claim to have a native american staffer was to use the lying sack of s*** Warren's bogus claim"...of course not...those noble educators at Harvard would never lie (well, excepting Warren, apparently, of course) to further their aims or to try to bolster their reputation or political standing....why, it is pure coincidence that their only native American staffer happened to be Warren...shear coincidence...and yet, you just continue to defend the indefensible...

Harvard may have tried to make a little PR hay from it, but that doesn't prove that's why they hired her. Like TT said, she was more than qualified.

If her Indian heritage was a heavy consideration, they'd want more than a checked box on a form.

And there's no reason to assume Warren knew it wasn't true, although clearly she WANTED to believe it as she made no effort to prove it.

The fact no one seemed interested in verifying it just confirms it was a relatively trivial matter. It reflects poorly on both Warren AND Harvard to the extent they used it, but it's not the sort of disqualifying scandal it's being made out to be.