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

[homersapien 11,388]

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 ? :roflol:/> 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 !!

I'm curious. Do such posts provide you with any sexual gratification?

I think you have a 'Cole fetish'.

[cole256 17,084]

Lol he's upset he got caught lying again lol! So pathetic. Did you see him try to wordplay mocking someone old as opposed to mocking an older guy name calling cartoon characters? This is his life lol. I sort of feel sad for him, he probably just want to be good at something in his life

[AURaptor 1,125]

Lol he's upset he got caught lying again lol! So pathetic. Did you see him try to wordplay mocking someone old as opposed to mocking an older guy name calling cartoon characters? This is his life lol. I sort of feel sad for him, he probably just want to be good at something in his life

Can't be caught lying again if I was never caught lying in the first place. But sure, you keep on lying about ME lying, It's all you really have.

I addressed your post. I didn't in the least bit convey that I was upset at anything other than you, yet again, falsely claiming I lied. If anyone would call you out for something you didn't do, how would that be " pathetic " ? You'd be simply making a correction.

And that's all I've done here.

Upset ? I do no think that word means what you think it means.

[AURaptor 1,125]

I'm curious. Do such posts provide you with any sexual gratification?

I think you have a 'Cole fetish'.

That's the stupidest thing I think I've heard you say - ever.

How much did you have to drink to come up w/ such nonsense ?

[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.....

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

http://www.thecrimso...n-faust-letter/

The Crimson...well, let's see. Did you actually read the full article? or the link it references from earlier? The Crimson on multiple occasions had asserted that Warren was Harvard's lone Native American faculty member....lone Native American tenured faculty member...so, yeah, I basically think they're full of s*** as well.

The other interesting thing; the Crimson articles you posted were from April of 2012 or earlier. Since then, even though, Warren has been shown to be a liar and shown to have falsified her resume; there's been no followup from the Harvard faculty or ethics committee....hhhmmm, so you want me to believe the self serving statements made by Harvard law school types when they won't even enforce their own code of conduct or ethics? Really? Yeah, well, I really don't expect a den of whores and liars like a law school faculty to apply an ethics code .... they can't be expected to enforce sanctions on a leftist political darling....ethics and codes of conducts are for the little people...

Now, if someone were found to have falsified their resume in my company; minimally there would be an investigation; secondly, there would be an official censure if not termination; and then finally, if the individual was only censured; they wouldn't last 6 months anyway because no one would follow them knowing they were a liar who thought the basic rules of honesty and decency didn't apply to them. But, again, that's not a problem for the left...

Lastly, if Warren didn't try to use her faux-heritage for political gain; then why did she lie? That says she either just stupid (i.e., lying for no reason) or just, well, a petty lying sack of s***. In either case; how can any of you on here defend her?

[TexasTiger 12,952]

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.thecrimso...n-faust-letter/

The Crimson...well, let's see. Did you actually read the full article? or the link it references from earlier? The Crimson on multiple occasions had asserted that Warren was Harvard's lone Native American faculty member....lone Native American tenured faculty member...so, yeah, I basically think they're full of s*** as well.

The other interesting thing; the Crimson articles you posted were from April of 2012 or earlier. Since then, even though, Warren has been shown to be a liar and shown to have falsified her resume; there's been no followup from the Harvard faculty or ethics committee....hhhmmm, so you want me to believe the self serving statements made by Harvard law school types when they won't even enforce their own code of conduct or ethics? Really? Yeah, well, I really don't expect a den of whores and liars like a law school faculty to apply an ethics code .... they can't be expected to enforce sanctions on a leftist political darling....ethics and codes of conducts are for the little people...

Now, if someone were found to have falsified their resume in my company; minimally there would be an investigation; secondly, there would be an official censure if not termination; and then finally, if the individual was only censured; they wouldn't last 6 months anyway because no one would follow them knowing they were a liar who thought the basic rules of honesty and decency didn't apply to them. But, again, that's not a problem for the left...

Lastly, if Warren didn't try to use her faux-heritage for political gain; then why did she lie? That says she either just stupid (i.e., lying for no reason) or just, well, a petty lying sack of s***. In either case; how can any of you on here defend her?

She didn't falsify her resume or an application form. You keep lying about the matter to make your case. What's that make you?

[AURaptor 1,125]

At worst, it makes JT wrong. Not a liar, like EW

[TexasTiger 12,952]

At worst, it makes JT wrong. Not a liar, like EW

Is an intentionally wrong person lying?

[AURaptor 1,125]

At worst, it makes JT wrong. Not a liar, like EW

Is an intentionally wrong person lying?

She's made claims she can't verify... Apply the same rules to her then.

[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.....

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

http://www.thecrimso...n-faust-letter/

The Crimson...well, let's see. Did you actually read the full article? or the link it references from earlier? The Crimson on multiple occasions had asserted that Warren was Harvard's lone Native American faculty member....lone Native American tenured faculty member...so, yeah, I basically think they're full of s*** as well.

The other interesting thing; the Crimson articles you posted were from April of 2012 or earlier. Since then, even though, Warren has been shown to be a liar and shown to have falsified her resume; there's been no followup from the Harvard faculty or ethics committee....hhhmmm, so you want me to believe the self serving statements made by Harvard law school types when they won't even enforce their own code of conduct or ethics? Really? Yeah, well, I really don't expect a den of whores and liars like a law school faculty to apply an ethics code .... they can't be expected to enforce sanctions on a leftist political darling....ethics and codes of conducts are for the little people...

Now, if someone were found to have falsified their resume in my company; minimally there would be an investigation; secondly, there would be an official censure if not termination; and then finally, if the individual was only censured; they wouldn't last 6 months anyway because no one would follow them knowing they were a liar who thought the basic rules of honesty and decency didn't apply to them. But, again, that's not a problem for the left...

Lastly, if Warren didn't try to use her faux-heritage for political gain; then why did she lie? That says she either just stupid (i.e., lying for no reason) or just, well, a petty lying sack of s***. In either case; how can any of you on here defend her?

She didn't falsify her resume or an application form. You keep lying about the matter to make your case. What's that make you?

Well, since this is all you've got for a response, then you are ceding all my points. Thanks for finally ceasing to defend the indefensible.

Now to your lying allegation...in the 20th century, a resume would be considered a formal one or two page document submitted by a candidate listing their history, background, accomplishments. etc. However, with the advent of social media, a resume is the totality of someone's online/easily accessible history such as Linkedin, Facebook, this forum, etc,...anything easily identifiable and attributable to the candidate. When I have resume's submitted by recruiters, they pull from many online sources whether actually submitted by the candidate; or found by the HR or recruiting team....there are entire businesses that exist just to validate resumes and online histories. Warren did in fact submit her name and credentials to the Association of American Law Schools over a period of at least 10 years and billed herself as a Minority Law Teacher... thus making this information easily accessible by a casual search looking for her credentials by any competent HR professional. So, yeah, I'd consider this her resume. So, I would vigorously defend myself against your claim of lying based on any reasonable view of what constitutes a resume in the 21st century. I think you are being obtuse and deliberately disingenuous with your statement....reflecting a superficial attempt at deflecting from the fact that you know she is a lying sack of s*** and you appear just too stubborn to outright admit it.

[TexasTiger 12,952]

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.thecrimso...n-faust-letter/

The Crimson...well, let's see. Did you actually read the full article? or the link it references from earlier? The Crimson on multiple occasions had asserted that Warren was Harvard's lone Native American faculty member....lone Native American tenured faculty member...so, yeah, I basically think they're full of s*** as well.

The other interesting thing; the Crimson articles you posted were from April of 2012 or earlier. Since then, even though, Warren has been shown to be a liar and shown to have falsified her resume; there's been no followup from the Harvard faculty or ethics committee....hhhmmm, so you want me to believe the self serving statements made by Harvard law school types when they won't even enforce their own code of conduct or ethics? Really? Yeah, well, I really don't expect a den of whores and liars like a law school faculty to apply an ethics code .... they can't be expected to enforce sanctions on a leftist political darling....ethics and codes of conducts are for the little people...

Now, if someone were found to have falsified their resume in my company; minimally there would be an investigation; secondly, there would be an official censure if not termination; and then finally, if the individual was only censured; they wouldn't last 6 months anyway because no one would follow them knowing they were a liar who thought the basic rules of honesty and decency didn't apply to them. But, again, that's not a problem for the left...

Lastly, if Warren didn't try to use her faux-heritage for political gain; then why did she lie? That says she either just stupid (i.e., lying for no reason) or just, well, a petty lying sack of s***. In either case; how can any of you on here defend her?

She didn't falsify her resume or an application form. You keep lying about the matter to make your case. What's that make you?

Well, since this is all you've got for a response, then you are ceding all my points. Thanks for finally ceasing to defend the indefensible.

Now to your lying allegation...in the 20th century, a resume would be considered a formal one or two page document submitted by a candidate listing their history, background, accomplishments. etc. However, with the advent of social media, a resume is the totality of someone's online/easily accessible history such as Linkedin, Facebook, this forum, etc,...anything easily identifiable and attributable to the candidate. When I have resume's submitted by recruiters, they pull from many online sources whether actually submitted by the candidate; or found by the HR or recruiting team....there are entire businesses that exist just to validate resumes and online histories. Warren did in fact submit her name and credentials to the Association of American Law Schools over a period of at least 10 years and billed herself as a Minority Law Teacher... thus making this information easily accessible by a casual search looking for her credentials by any competent HR professional. So, yeah, I'd consider this her resume. So, I would vigorously defend myself against your claim of lying based on any reasonable view of what constitutes a resume in the 21st century. I think you are being obtuse and deliberately disingenuous with your statement....reflecting a superficial attempt at deflecting from the fact that you know she is a lying sack of s*** and you appear just too stubborn to outright admit it.

Your comparison to your workplace was faulty. She was not an unknown applicant for whom they would rely on outside sources. She's one of a handful of esteemed scholars they would have targeted to recruit. Had she fudged her academic or work credentials, that would have been investigated and, if proven, fired. Based on family lore, she identified herself as having Native American heritage in a publication that we have no evidence played a role in her hiring. She never misrepresented her qualifications or accomplishments. You have a conclusion you're intent on reaching and are more than happy to distort reality to get there. You could work for Trump.

[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.....

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

http://www.thecrimso...n-faust-letter/

The Crimson...well, let's see. Did you actually read the full article? or the link it references from earlier? The Crimson on multiple occasions had asserted that Warren was Harvard's lone Native American faculty member....lone Native American tenured faculty member...so, yeah, I basically think they're full of s*** as well.

The other interesting thing; the Crimson articles you posted were from April of 2012 or earlier. Since then, even though, Warren has been shown to be a liar and shown to have falsified her resume; there's been no followup from the Harvard faculty or ethics committee....hhhmmm, so you want me to believe the self serving statements made by Harvard law school types when they won't even enforce their own code of conduct or ethics? Really? Yeah, well, I really don't expect a den of whores and liars like a law school faculty to apply an ethics code .... they can't be expected to enforce sanctions on a leftist political darling....ethics and codes of conducts are for the little people...

Now, if someone were found to have falsified their resume in my company; minimally there would be an investigation; secondly, there would be an official censure if not termination; and then finally, if the individual was only censured; they wouldn't last 6 months anyway because no one would follow them knowing they were a liar who thought the basic rules of honesty and decency didn't apply to them. But, again, that's not a problem for the left...

Lastly, if Warren didn't try to use her faux-heritage for political gain; then why did she lie? That says she either just stupid (i.e., lying for no reason) or just, well, a petty lying sack of s***. In either case; how can any of you on here defend her?

She didn't falsify her resume or an application form. You keep lying about the matter to make your case. What's that make you?

Well, since this is all you've got for a response, then you are ceding all my points. Thanks for finally ceasing to defend the indefensible.

Now to your lying allegation...in the 20th century, a resume would be considered a formal one or two page document submitted by a candidate listing their history, background, accomplishments. etc. However, with the advent of social media, a resume is the totality of someone's online/easily accessible history such as Linkedin, Facebook, this forum, etc,...anything easily identifiable and attributable to the candidate. When I have resume's submitted by recruiters, they pull from many online sources whether actually submitted by the candidate; or found by the HR or recruiting team....there are entire businesses that exist just to validate resumes and online histories. Warren did in fact submit her name and credentials to the Association of American Law Schools over a period of at least 10 years and billed herself as a Minority Law Teacher... thus making this information easily accessible by a casual search looking for her credentials by any competent HR professional. So, yeah, I'd consider this her resume. So, I would vigorously defend myself against your claim of lying based on any reasonable view of what constitutes a resume in the 21st century. I think you are being obtuse and deliberately disingenuous with your statement....reflecting a superficial attempt at deflecting from the fact that you know she is a lying sack of s*** and you appear just too stubborn to outright admit it.

Your comparison to your workplace was faulty. She was not an unknown applicant for whom they would rely on outside sources. She's one of a handful of esteemed scholars they would have targeted to recruit. Had she fudged her academic or work credentials, that would have been investigated and, if proven, fired. Based on family lore, she identified herself as having Native American heritage in a publication that we have no evidence played a role in her hiring. She never misrepresented her qualifications or accomplishments. You have a conclusion you're intent on reaching and are more than happy to distort reality to get there. You could work for Trump.

Well, if you mean that she wasn't investigated seriously, then I would tend agree.

But are you insinuating that as a matter of course Ivy League university's do not investigate their candidates for senior/tenured positions? You think that a serious response? "Harvard doesn't do background checks"...that's it? "Well, I've heard that before....but is sounds uncommon nonsense" (Lewis Carroll). You seem out of touch with modern hiring practices. Maybe George O'leary should have sought a job coaching at Harvard and not Notre Dame following that logic. Whether someone is a known quantity or not, they are investigated. All candidates are vetted...and for the more senior candidates full background checks, police records, verification of awards, boards, work history, social media reviews, etc., are all vetted before finalizing the hire. You just keep going deeper in the rabbit hole to invent lame ass excuses to defend this lying sack of s***.

I sit on a university industrial relations boards; I was sought for the position, I was vetted and signed an affidavit prior to finalizing either. Your insinuation that either Ivy League schools or sought after candidates aren't vetted is laughable.... In her case; there are two errors; her statements regarding her heritage were seemingly taken on their face...and regurgitated in University publications; including your own source above, the Crimson until well after she left Harvard. Definitely sloppy work; but as eager as they were to have a native American tenured professor, not surprising. Secondly, to get listed in something like the AALS; the submitter has to pay for it...so for a period of 10 years, she knowingly provided info to the AALS she new was false....and set by and watched while everyone around her regurgitated it....but was seemingly unaware?...anyone that vacuous shouldn't be left alone with sharp objects.

[TexasTiger 12,952]

You always frame things to suit your purpose. You miss the point that they've talked to folks at Harvard after the fact and this issue you and your ilk believe is so damning is irrelevant. Her family lore was that she was a few generations removed from a Native American ancestor and she listed that heritage in a publication. Proving that with a document was never important to getting the job. The fact that she can't provide documented proof didn't cost her her job. Harvard knows everything you know, and more, and they continue to just roll their collective eyes at your partisan silliness.

[AURaptor 1,125]

You always frame things to suit your purpose.

Because no one else EVER does that, huh ?

[TexasTiger 12,952]

You always frame things to suit your purpose.

Because no one else EVER does that, huh ?

<_</>

One of your more thoughtful and meaningful posts to date. You are truly upping your game. Don't think for one moment this kind of effort goes unnoticed.

[telling tiger 156]

:-\

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

I think the problem is she was attacking Trump for his money making real estate deals? And to find out she does the same to a lessor extent, these people are priceless, by the way if anyone hasn't dealt with developers before a little advice , tread carefully. Didn't Jeb Bush claim he was Hispanic ?

Link to what she said about Trump.

Sorry , can't link a radio broadcast, Google works pretty well I have found.

[TexasTiger 12,952]

I think the problem is she was attacking Trump for his money making real estate deals? And to find out she does the same to a lessor extent, these people are priceless, by the way if anyone hasn't dealt with developers before a little advice , tread carefully. Didn't Jeb Bush claim he was Hispanic ?

Link to what she said about Trump.

Sorry , can't link a radio broadcast, Google works pretty well I have found.

Then use it and note the distinction.

[japantiger 4,051]

You always frame things to suit your purpose. You miss the point that they've talked to folks at Harvard after the fact and this issue you and your ilk believe is so damning is irrelevant. Her family lore was that she was a few generations removed from a Native American ancestor and she listed that heritage in a publication. Proving that with a document was never important to getting the job. The fact that she can't provide documented proof didn't cost her her job. Harvard knows everything you know, and more, and they continue to just roll their collective eyes at your partisan silliness.

Well, Tex, you sound like a whiny presidential candidate pissed off because one of the guys won't play by the rules ... if you mean that we should believe an institution that was so desperate for a tenured Native American candidate that they failed to do due diligence on her background, and still hasn't responded to her being proved a fraud, then I can't help you....she is an obvious liar by any objective standard; and the fact that Harvard has not responded to the allegations since she's been proved a fraud speaks volumes about the institution and what they represent. You keep defending her...and "Havaad"... for inexplicable reason Tex ... and "Havaad" meanwhile keeps rolling their collective eyes because whit-less dupes like you actually think they represent something other than their own preservation.

[TexasTiger 12,952]

You always frame things to suit your purpose. You miss the point that they've talked to folks at Harvard after the fact and this issue you and your ilk believe is so damning is irrelevant. Her family lore was that she was a few generations removed from a Native American ancestor and she listed that heritage in a publication. Proving that with a document was never important to getting the job. The fact that she can't provide documented proof didn't cost her her job. Harvard knows everything you know, and more, and they continue to just roll their collective eyes at your partisan silliness.

Well, Tex, you sound like a whiny presidential candidate pissed off because one of the guys won't play by the rules ... if you mean that we should believe an institution that was so desperate for a tenured Native American candidate that they failed to do due diligence on her background, and still hasn't responded to her being proved a fraud, then I can't help you....she is an obvious liar by any objective standard; and the fact that Harvard has not responded to the allegations since she's been proved a fraud speaks volumes about the institution and what they represent. You keep defending her...and "Havaad"... for inexplicable reason Tex ... and "Havaad" meanwhile keeps rolling their collective eyes because whit-less dupes like you actually think they represent something other than their own preservation.

And you get predictably pissy when the facts don't support your ranting drivel.