patrick.net

Dan8267 says

1. Warren did not create Affirmative Action.
2. There is no evidence to suggest that Warren even benefited from Affirmative Action.
3. There is no evidence to suggest that Warren prevented someone else from benefiting from Affirmative Action.
4. There is no evidence to suggest that Warren lied or in any way exaggerated or misrepresented the truth.

I didn't say she created AA. No evidence? She was listed as minority professor based on this claim. How can anyone go back four or so generations to claim being a minority? If she qualified for minority status then that means she could have been taking the spot of someone who was a real minorityDan8267 says

And quite frankly, that marriage license is more than reasonable evidence to cause a person to believe that he or she is descendant from Native Americans.

6. Just because Warren is white and blonde doesn't mean that all her ancestors were white. If anything, this just proves that Affirmative Action is silly.
7. The silliness of Affirmative Action is not Warren's fault.
8. If a republican were the subject of this made up scandal, not a single conservative would give it credit and you all would be calling this a liberal bullshit attempt to distract from the real issues. And so would I.
9. Warrens research on the decline of the middle class alone proves her competence and ability.

Warren also said quoting her aunt that this ancestor had high cheekbones like all native americans do. Huh? So now she's making stereotypes
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/warren-my-grandfather-had-high-cheekbones-all-indians-do_643103.html

What if this ancestor was Jewish and she made some claim about Jews having the same phenotypes? Dan8267 says

Dude, she was raised with the story of her Native American ancestor. She had accepted it as a fact since she was a child. During the three seconds it takes to check a box on a form, she probably didn't analyze the situation and just thought "well I am descendent from Native Americans, maybe it would be fun to meet others" and then never thought about it again. This is very believable.

Again, the evidence shows that her claim is valid, and even if it wasn't, even if it were simply a mistake, it would not be a lie. But again, the evidence shows it's not even a mistake. This is clearly conservatives trying to character assassinate a threat to their power.

And as a child people accept Santa but should we invoke that as well?

Back in '04 the same was argued with Senator Kerry in that it was found out he really wasn't Irish but rather Czech and Jewish. Kohn was his real last name.
http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishgenealogy/a/jewpas_kerry.htm

The argument being is that you should know your background before you run for office. She should have known this was going to come up just like everything she has ever published or taught.

To note I used to get into some interesting conversations with a man from Venezuela (he left after Chavez came in). He claimed being Latino should include all latin based languages, not just Portuguese and Spanish. If everyone that was French, Italian and Romanian put down they were latino the whole concept would be screwed up. She should have never put it down as she knew it had significance or else they wouldn't have asked for it!Dan8267 says

Comparing Warren to Romney, Bush, or any other successful republican is a joke

True so why did you?Dan8267 says

In contrast, Elizabeth Warren is certainly a self-made person. And yet she still doesn't take on the republican "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude

And she doesn't show up for her debates even though they were announced months prior. If she doesn't win the primary she has no one to blame but herself. If she loses she would have to mount a independent bid about two months prior to the election which would require massive amounts of money. There have been debates with a empty chair representing Warren. You should never ignore the fact that primaries happen before general elections.

Since when is showing up so hard to do? Mass isn't the same size as CA. You can drive halfway across us in probably two hours.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/02/elizabeth_warren_angers_democr.html

If she loves to talk about the issues then why not just show up for a debate? If this was republican debate the press would be all over it.Dan8267 says

The only people who are bitching about Warren are Bush supporters.

I wasn't a bush supporting and you making a poor argument to suggest so. Get back to the main topic and start making a logical discussion about the issues I brought up!Dan8267 says

The Consumer Protection Board was destroyed by republicans and their banker overlords.

OK that's fine. So why should Warren brag about creating it on her commercials. She cannot have it both ways. Either it does what she wanted it to do or it does not.

Her ads state in mass that she stood up against the banks...how? With what? She doesn't list anything.

She's not even middle class. She has a job where you cannot get fired (tenure). To what manner and what extent is is "middle class" to have a guaranteed job for life?

This isn't to slam the left. The sad thing is there ARE some decent democrats but they don't get the support. Democrats do this all the time. They support someone for being popular or cool rather than people that worked in communities, advanced opportunities or *gasp* created jobs.

Here's one that SHOULD have stayed in the race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Khazei

He dropped out because Warren gets more national attention. Meanwhile this guy has had more management experience in one year then Warren has had in her whole life. He challenged other democrats not to take PAC money..well Warren did.

mdovell says

No evidence? She was listed as minority professor based on this claim.

Maybe being a woman counted as a minority.

Kevin says

CL says

Keep in mind that this has served them well since the 40s, since no Democrat had ever been reelected before Clinton.

This is dumb. If you cherry pick dates and ignore FDR, there were only two republicans to win re-election before Clinton.

Had JFK and RFK not been assassinated, it probably would have been democrats all through the 60s and 70s.

What you said is about the equivalent of saying "No Republican has been President since 2008".

Nixon was re-elected too (assuming you meant Ike and Reagan).

I don't think it's dumb, no. It doesn't matter if you agree, what matters is that POLITICALLY, the Republicans had been able to claim that a Democratic victory was an anomaly. That the country is right-center/right, and that Democrats only get elected when their side screws up.

(Even with Clinton, they rush to believe that Ross Perot threw it to him, or myriad other ways to de-legitimize Democratic Presidents).

When they overlay this myth on top of economic cycles and the tautology I presented, it allows them to blame all bad things on Ds, and all "good" things on the Rs.

As a political strategy this served them well until Clinton, although you can see their writhing under Obama.

mdovell says

I didn't say she created AA.

Nor did I say that you said that. However, I am pointing out that it is ridiculous to take out your dislike of Affirmative Action on Warren.

mdovell says

She was listed as minority professor based on this claim. How can anyone go back four or so generations to claim being a minority?

This history is part of why the response of Harvard and Elizabeth Warren to questions about her listing as a minority—a Native American—in faculty directories has been disappointing. Warren, a Harvard Law School professor who is running for Senate in Massachusetts against Scott Brown, has said that she is one thirty-second Cherokee—which, under tribal rules, could be enough—and there is apparently genealogical evidence to back her up.

- http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/05/elizabeth-warrens-native-american-question.html

Evidently yes according to tribal rules. But that's not the real issue, is it? Are you really upset that Warren was listed as a minority professor while being "mostly white" (as if that had any real meaning anyway)? Are you so much in favor of Affirmative Action that you think it must only apply to true dark skin minorities? I suspect that you loath AA even more than I do, and if that's true, than this whole Native American contrived controversy is just a red herring to distract from the real issues.

Here's how to tell if you are being sincere. Would you be as upset if your candidate of choice was the alleged liar? If not, then your not being sincere.

As for me, if Bush or Obama had lied about their ancestry, I wouldn't give a rat's ass, even if they did receive an Affirmative Action benefit -- which Warren didn't -- because it's a non-issue and there are plenty of important reasons to hate Bush and Obama just based on their actual policies.

mdovell says

Warren also said quoting her aunt that this ancestor had high cheekbones like all native americans do. Huh? So now she's making stereotypes

Jesus fucking Christ that's grasping at straws. A statement about inheriting a physical characteristic is in no fucking way racism or bigotry. Let me tell you a true, real life story. When I was working for a company that was helping law enforcement track down pedophiles on the Internet, one day my brilliant coding skills helped out one of the officers solve a perplexing problem. He said quote, "Bless your Irish heart" in gratitude. I was a bit surprised and responded, "Hey, I actually am part Irish" thinking that it was just a coincidence since we had just met. He then explained that he could tell by my physical appearance and sited very specific physical traits. And I look way the fuck more Italian than Irish. So, it just goes to show you that people can and do deduce ancestry based on physical traits. It's called forensics science and it can be scarily precise. It turns out you can also do this with accents and find out, not just what country someone is from, but even the very town.

mdovell says

What if this ancestor was Jewish and she made some claim about Jews having the same phenotypes?

Again, it's not racism to point out a truth. It is racism to speak derogatively of racial physical traits, but not to simply acknowledge physical differences. Suggesting that Warren is racist is utter bullshit. So don't even go there. There was nothing derogatory in her statements.

mdovell says

And as a child people accept Santa but should we invoke that as well?

That's a Straw Man argument. The argument I made is that unless Warren actually believed she was not descendant from Native Americans and claimed it anyway, it's not a lie. A lie is intentionally telling a falsehood. There is nothing unethical about being incorrect. So even if Warren was incorrect, but it was an honest mistake, there is nothing unethical about it.

Is that really so difficult for you to accept? It really seems that you have alternative reasons for wanting to see Warren fail, and that's no position to be in if you are attacking her ethics. It's like the makers of NutraSweet saying that Splenda is bad for you.

So be honest, aside from the Native American question, do you want to see her fail to be elected? If so, maybe you should address the reasons you don't want her elected instead of this trumped up fake controversy. That way, we can debate real issues with real impact on real people.

mdovell says

Back in '04 the same was argued with Senator Kerry in that it was found out he really wasn't Irish but rather Czech and Jewish. Kohn was his real last name.

Who cares? Warren is not Kerry. His actions have nothing to do with hers. His politics has nothing to do with hers. Don't make the election of Warren out to be a right vs. left issue. It's a middle class vs. bankers issue.

mdovell says

The argument being is that you should know your background before you run for office. She should have known this was going to come up just like everything she has ever published or taught.

1. Your ethnic background should not be an issue at all when running for public office. That's retarded and bigoted.
2. What exactly do you think she should have done before running for office to prepare for this complete non-issue?
3. There is no way that anyone can anticipate all the possible bullshit that might be flung at them when they run for office. The asshole marketers who create this bullshit have an unlimited supply of bullshit creating material. It's like The National Enquirer running stories about Obama having a gay affair with an alien that probed his ass while Dick Cheney shot and stuffed Bigfoot. There's some batshit crazy bullshit you can't anticipate, and you certainly can't prevent assholes from making shit like this up.

Case in point, My Gay Romp with John Travolta. Yeah, I sure Travolta could have prevented that article from being written.

mdovell says

She should have never put it down as she knew it had significance or else they wouldn't have asked for it!

No, there is absolutely no reason she should not have "put it down" since she honestly believes -- and probably correctly so given the marriage certificate -- that it was true.

You could make a case that no employment form or employer should ever ask such any questions about a person's racial background. And I would whole-heartedly agree with you if you did. But that means repealing Affirmative Action, which forces employers to ask this question. And I'd be all for repealing that law, and I suspect strongly that so would you, which means that you aren't really upset that Warren checked Native American in some stupid form decades ago.

In fact, promoting this trumped up controversy is no way to get rid of Affirmative Action. It actually strengthens the argument for AA by claiming that it's still needed by "real minorities".

Oh, and by the way, Affirmative Action does also help women in general as they are still and certainly were in the 1980s and 1990s considered a minority. And last I checked, Elizabeth Warren was a woman. And that alone would qualify her for preferential treatment under AA.

Kevin says

Comparing Warren to Romney, Bush, or any other successful republican is a joke

True so why did you?

Are your reading comprehension skills really that low? Obviously I was illustrating why Warren is not even comparable to liars like Romney and Bush.

mdovell says

And she doesn't show up for her debates even though they were announced months prior. If she doesn't win the primary she has no one to blame but herself. If she loses she would have to mount a independent bid about two months prior to the election which would require massive amounts of money. There have been debates with a empty chair representing Warren. You should never ignore the fact that primaries happen before general elections.

And all that might be true. All that might even be a deal killer for her electability. But it has nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, to do with the contrived controversy that Warren lied on an employment form to gain AA favoritism. If you want to make the point that there are material reasons to vote against Warren, then do so, but do not intertwine them with this utter bullshit about Warren's ethnic heritage.

If you want to debate the issues you mentioned in the above paragraph, I'm more than willing to do so, but not on this thread since it's a red herring regarding this thread's issue. Now, if you want to debate those other issues, I'll need to do research to first since I haven't heard of those complains before. And since I haven't heard of those complaints, I have absolutely no opinion regarding them. Only after I find out all the facts will I form an opinion, and for all I know, I'll agree with you about them. But those issues have nothing to do with the fake controversy presented by this thread, and thus have no bearing on this discussion.

mdovell says

The Consumer Protection Board was destroyed by republicans and their banker overlords.

OK that's fine. So why should Warren brag about creating it on her commercials. She cannot have it both ways.

Warren believes that the Consumer Protection Board still has value. I disagree. She's not having it both ways. I simply do not have as much confidence in the CPB as she does. I hope that I'm wrong, but I don't think that I am. I'd like to be wrong, but that's another matter. My assessment is that the CPB was dead on arrive since Warren wasn't allowed to be in charge of it because of republicans sucking the cocks of bankers, and because most of its power was stripped from the bill before voting, also because of bank cock sucking republicans.

However, Warren is under no obligation to agree with my assessments. We are different people with entirely different and distinct brains. I assure you that there are no neural pathways connecting her brain with mine.

Now I do give Warren credit for fighting against immense odds to reform banking. At least she's working her ass off to protect the middle class. I don't know of any other office seeker or holder who's even trying to help the middle class. And I use those the terms "office seeker" and "holder" because I don't even consider Warren to be a politician. If elected, I suspect she will be a policy maker, not a politician.

mdovell says

Her ads state in mass that she stood up against the banks...how? With what? She doesn't list anything.

Again, not relevant to the Native American question. But if you want to discuss all the things Warren has done to fight for the middle class, start a new thread. I'll enumerate all the ways in which she has done battle for us.

mdovell says

She's not even middle class. She has a job where you cannot get fired (tenure). To what manner and what extent is is "middle class" to have a guaranteed job for life?

You consider tenured professors to be rich? I can't even respond to that level of delusion.

And it doesn't even matter. You don't have to be middle class to fight for the middle class. Even Warren Buffet has been an advocate of the middle class and he was at least at one time the richest man in the world.

Hell, I advocate equality for homosexuals and I'm not gay, nor do I have any gay family members or friends that I know of. You don't have to be part of the group you are trying to protect. It's called empathy.

mdovell says

The sad thing is there ARE some decent democrats but they don't get the support. Democrats do this all the time.

True. I'd even go as far as saying that there are very few decent democrats and the majority democrats have willingly sacrificed, nay, betrayed the few decent ones like Anthony Wiener over stupid, contrived issues like sexting.

Of course, I'd also say that there are few, even fewer, decent republicans. Even worse, the evil that republicans do isn't in the same league, hell the same sport, as done by democrats. Democrats waste money, lie on their lazy asses, and reward cronies. Republican do all those things too, but far worse, they start wars in violation of international law, kill millions, torture, sexually humiliate people, dehumanize people, and trample on the most basic of human rights.

It's not that both sides are terrible, its that the republicans do evil on a whole different scary level. Before the big party switcharoo of the 1960s, it was the democrats doing the really evil things, but even back then it wasn't as bad as now.

thunderlips11 says

Maybe being a woman counted as a minority.

Completely true and valid.

CL says

Nixon was re-elected too

Also true. And despite being a crook and a racist, Nixon was still far better a president than Reagan or either Bush. At least Nixon had accomplishments like nuclear reduction and some environmental protections. I'm not a fan of the EPA, but at least that organization started out good under Nixon.

And despite being very much a hawk during the 1960s, Nixon did come to his senses and end the Vietnam War.

Finally, Nixon had the good sense to listen to Henry Kissinger, who was a very intelligent and knowledgeable person. Now there's a lot that I disagree with Kissinger with, particularly the viability of surviving a full out nuclear war, but he was a very smart individual and very adept to the particular time and cold war situation he served under.

Now if only Nixon was a scumbag, I could give him much higher praise. Still, at least he was just a typical political scumbag, which is gold compare to the shit we've seen over the past 12 years with Bush and Obama. Compared to all the evil that's happened in Washington during the first 12 years of the 21st century, Nixon's sins are minor.

CL says

(Even with Clinton, they rush to believe that Ross Perot threw it to him, or myriad other ways to de-legitimize Democratic Presidents).

I don't know if Ross Perot affected the actual outcome of the Clinton election, but he certainly was a spoiler to some extent. Still, I liked Ross Perot. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I never agree 100% with any politician. But I certainly like his platform more than any other in my memory including Clinton's.

Just a quick check on OnTheIssues.org to refresh my memory… And yes, Ross Perot has a lot in common with Ron Paul, who I also like to a large extent particularly in the area of civil rights and currency reform. So actually, Ross Perot would have been more of an anti-Clinton spoiler to me than an anti-Bush spoiler.

CL says

it allows them to blame all bad things on Ds, and all "good" things on the Rs.

So true.

CL says

As a political strategy this served them well until Clinton, although you can see their writhing under Obama.

The only good thing about Obama is that he pisses off the ultra-cons. And that would be good enough if it wasn't for his horrific record on human and civil rights. I could overlook his bad economic policies, but not the human and civil rights issues.

APOCALYPSEFUCK isFrank Sinatra says

Dan

This is an incredible visual interpretation of my fantasy.

Can you do the same with the Warren-Black radioactive mutant bankster eating kids?

Please?

AF

My artistic talents are quite limited, but here's my best shot.

Dan8267 says

Ron Paul, who I also like to a large extent particularly in the area of civil rights

You and Stormfront have something in common, then?

I like the idea of Ron Paul. I always like when Republicans criticize their own, and Paul did in spades during the Bush Administration. Still, he's a liar and a hypocrite. I think the Paulistas are generally blinded by his obvious defects.

Here and elsewhere you'll see idiotic sentences composed of words like"fiat" and "hyperinflation", "Von Mises" or "Hayek". It's an obvious sign that they've likely watched a Paul video on youtube, and they're probably the biggest blowhards in their soon-to-be irritated social circles.

Facts and nuance don't matter--just a few vocab words is all you need to make you feel smarter than those kids at school who ignored you and didn't pick you for their dodgeball team.

(You here doesn't equal Dan, but rather the Paul acolytes)

(I had a "not equal sign there--didn't appear)

CL says

Still, he's a liar and a hypocrite. I think the Paulistas are generally blinded by his obvious defects.

Ron Paul suffers from the same two fundamental flaws most libertarians do.

1. They don't understand game theory, and so they naively apply their philosophies.
2. They don't believe in the concept of public property including the environment.

On the second issue, I haven't seen hypocritical behavior in Ron Paul, myself. Of course, I haven't watched every single piece of Ron Paul video. But from the extensive videos I've seen, I'd say Ron Paul's flaw would be that he's too idealistic, not hypocritical. And those are pretty much mutually exclusive flaws, being polar opposites. He follows the simply philosophies he believes in even when it makes no sense to do so.

Dan8267 says

I haven't seen hypocritical behavior in Ron Paul, myself

Watch what he does, not what he says. What he says sounds and is for the most part consistent. But why does he deride pork, yet bring it home?

Dr. No is Dr. Pork. How can the two be reconciled? With old-fashioned political parsing.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/ron-paul-texas-federal-spending-pork

He is against Government intrusion into your private life, but supports anti-choice legislation.

He is "pro individual liberty and freedom" but opposes gay marriage.

Or does he? If you look closely at Paul's statements he flips and flops and tries to be both sides to the arguments by diverting your attention to a third argument that's hard to disagree with; blanket everything in platitudes about freedom, liberty, the intrusive Government and whatnot.

He's a walking contradiction, and the far-right wingnuts can hear the dog whistles he sends out on the race issues, like the anti-MLK stuff, the newsletters, the donations from Stormfront that he refused to return, the anti-Abe Lincoln nonsense, the "civil-war didn't need to be fought", the anti-Rosa Parks stuff, and on and on.

But then he'll argue that the drug war is more racist than all the rest, and receive applause.

Hypocrisy, lies, parsing, denial...standard "fleet-footed" political characteristics, no?

CL says

But why does he deride pork, yet bring it home?

Fair enough. Evidence seems to back up this claim.

Still, from what I've read, the earmarks that Ron Paul has requested did relate to what seems to be useful infrastructure spending. And, in all fairness, there is a difference between the federal government spending on vital infrastructure and pork or waste.

Of course, I don't know for sure if the particular earmarks were for vital or frivolous infrastructure. I cannot evaluate that myself. And it is inconsistent with his philosophy that all spending and revenue generation should be done at the state level. So there seems to be a level of contradiction here, but not necessarily an outright contradiction, but more of a conflict of ideology and pragmatism.

CL says

He is "pro individual liberty and freedom" but opposes gay marriage.

My understanding of Paul's position on gay marriage is that he thinks it and pretty much everything else should be a state issue. This doesn't make any sense to me, but it would be consistent with part of Paul's philosophy and typical libertarian behavior.

However, as a libertarian, Paul should also believe that the government should not interfere with the private affairs of consenting adults. As such, only two positions are consistent with the libertarian philosophy: either marriage should not be a secular institution or gays should have the same rights to marry as straights.

This also seems to be a conflict of principles in Paul's philosophies, but not quite hypocrisy, at least not on the level that we see in most democrats and republicans.

CL says

the "civil-war didn't need to be fought"

Every other nation got rid of slavery without a civil war. Why was it necessary for the United States to experience one to end slavery? That's actually a good historical question.

CL says

Hypocrisy, lies, parsing, denial...standard "fleet-footed" political characteristics, no?

I still think that Ron Paul believes everything he is saying and that the conflicts you brought up are a result of flaws in the libertarian philosophy rather than deception. There is a difference. For example, when the Tea Party says they want small government but votes for NDAA, it's clear they don't want small government. Ron Paul, on the other hand, I think that he sincerely believes in what he is saying even when reality forces two of his ideas to be mutually exclusive.

So, yes, he's far from perfect and too old to be president now anyway, but I'd still take him over any of the other republican candidates since at least he's not overtly evil.

Dan8267 says

So there seems to be a level of contradiction here, but not necessarily an outright contradiction, but more of a conflict of ideology and pragmatism.

He, like all Republicans, views bringing Federal dollars home to YOUR district as frivolous and wasteful, but his is a valid investment. He was against funding for New Orleans, but supports it for Galveston. It's hypocritical, and worse yet, typical of all congresscritters.

Myself? I think they should bring it home. I wish California did. The right will pillory funding for grape-eating wasps, but it represents a real threat to a multibillion dollar industry here in Napa. It's all theater, but the Republicans believe their side. And Paul pretends to be above the fray and beyond reproach, but he's the same in all ways.

RE: Civil war, it's a pattern. The rights of the other (read: minority) isn't worth the cost. Certainly African slaves felt it was worth it, and they rewarded the GOP with near unanimous support after the war. And it plays into the racist remnants who argue the worst about Lincoln, MLK, Rosa Parks and anyone who advanced civil liberties for minorities. You can find it all on the CCC webpage.

When asked about those unsavory racists who flock to him and contribute to his campaign, he said, "They support me, I don't support them". More convenience!

And say, on gay marriage, if I told you that a politician personally thought that gay marriage was okay, but they favored civil unions, you would rightly label them a coward.

Paul says it should be left to the States, but he personally believes it's for a man and woman. What is the difference between the pols?

He says the same about abortion, too. What is his position on DOMA?

CL says

He, like all Republicans, views bringing Federal dollars home to YOUR district as frivolous and wasteful, but his is a valid investment.

Republicans earmark as much as democrats. The entire midwest depends on the "defense" -- and I use that term loosely -- industry, which is nothing but a huge jobs programs for red states.

CL says

Certainly African slaves felt it was worth it, and they rewarded the GOP with near unanimous support after the war.

That was when the Republican Party were full of east coast, Taxachussetts liberals, and the Democratic Party was composed of racist, Jesus-freak southerners and "heartland" imbreds.

During the 1960s, all the retards left the Democratic Party and flooded the Republican Party forcing all the sane people in that party to become independents or Democrats.

Today's Democrats are the party of Abe Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower. That's why you can't find any good republican after 1960. That's also why, with the exception of Obama, you can't find any evil democratic presidents after 1960.

It's pretty obvious that the two parties switched roles. The republicans of today would absolutely despise the republicans of pre-1960 and their policies.

CL says

Paul says it should be left to the States, but he personally believes it's for a man and woman. What is the difference between the pols?

He says the same about abortion, too. What is his position on DOMA?

True, Paul does leave rights as a state issue, and that makes no sense. Human and civil rights are clearly a world issue, and in the absence of a strong world organization to protect human and civil rights worldwide, we're left with rights being a national issue.

Agreed on all points (except your overly harsh critique of Obama).

Remember that the term "pork barrel" was aptly named for the act of tossing salt pork to the slaves and letting them fight for their share. If Paul is at the barrel fighting with rest while condemning his peers, what would you call it?

I'm just not sure why so many are so generous with Paul. His votes aren't courageous, especially when he knows they won't damage the party or his brand. Courage would require that he does what's right when it helps AND when it hurts. He could have done so by rejecting Federal funding for HIS district, but something tells me he would have paid the price at the polls.

What is his position(s) on climate change?

CL says

I'm just not sure why so many are so generous with Paul.

Because Ron Paul is the only candidate in the past 12 years that has been very anti-torture and anti-murder. And a lot of people are scared shitless of what our government can and does do today.

CL says

What is his position(s) on climate change?

Like most libertarians and all republicans he denies the existence of it because dealing with climate change means less profits in the short-term. That's one of the two fundamental flaws I mentioned: the lack of belief in public property including the environment.

Dan8267 says

Because Ron Paul is the only candidate in the past 12 years that has been very anti-torture and anti-murder.

Has he done anything to stop it, or has only SAID he's against it. Why would anyone believe him? Pols say a lot of stuff, hence your critique on O.

On Climate Change,

http://newhampshireprimary.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-global-warming-flip-flop.html

Are you being too generous?

If he said, "I'm for decriminalizing marijuana, but I think it's not something the President can change, so I leave it up to the Congress to accept bribes from the Drug War corporations...."

Or, "I'm against torture, but Congress won't pass the bill..."

I'm for skepticism and scrutiny of all public officials. Paul gets a pass on everything.

Conservatives were outraged when he refused to support McCain et al. because they had views that were too different from his. Yet his support McKinney, who was a Green.

If it were a liberal who supported a teabagger, would it strike you as odd and inconsistent?

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/21/ron_paul_hates_republicans_and_everything_they_stand_for/

Dan8267 says

Ron Paul suffers from the same two fundamental flaws most libertarians do.

No, he has a 3rd flaw.

All his "states rights" horseshit, which is of course applied when and where he wants to.

When the goal is outlawing abortion, then "states rights" are good when it's states who are passing the laws against. You'd think then that he'd hold Federal laws should stay out of it entirely right? WRONG! He has also authored several bills trying to define life as beginning at conception. That BS is just an element in the Liberty Toolkit he likes to reach for, when he's not busy with incomprehensible "questions" (monologues for CSPAN) in committee meetings.

Ask Ron Paul if he works on ratchetting down military spending in his district 90%, or even a mere 10%. It makes no sense to say he's against military adventurism, if he's going to leave a fat standing military around for the next guy.

I did just cast my California primary vote for Ron Paul in spite of his flaws. He's just too entertaining to pass up.

I did just cast my California primary vote for Ron Paul in spite of his flaws. He's just too entertaining to pass up.

Well, if he doesn't get us on the Gold Standard in 6 weeks, I'm going to question my belief in the Easter Bunny. ;)

The point here, relating to HONESTY is simply this: if Elizabeth Warren could not resist the TEMPTATION on the ADVANTAGE it gave her to claim some heritage that she IS NOT, just HOW will she resist the MASSIVE TEMPTATIONS that the BANKING LOBBY will throw at her in her attempts to crack down on that industry should she get elected to the position??

She may say the right things perhaps (cleaning up the banking sector, etc.), but she has already proven herself corruptable and fit for compromise!!! Nuff said....

CL says

We can show you logically why wealth concentration is bad for America and the world.

Of course wealth concentration is good for America and the world. How else are slave-labor jobs going to be created?

Blurtman says

and here is another example of an overachieving psychopath who will say anything to get ahead.

Oh come on now, overachieving psychopath's are held up as heroes in American history. Greatness in America is defined as how many people you manage to exploit for personal gain and fame.

Dan8267 says

Are you really upset that Warren was listed as a minority professor while being "mostly white" (as if that had any real meaning anyway)? Are you so much in favor of Affirmative Action that you think it must only apply to true dark skin minorities?

I don't know your educational background here but within academia generally it is publish or perish. Within most tenure systems about 2% annually are terminated but 25% of professors do not get tenure to begin with. This is why the whole minority status stands out because if she was leaning on that instead of publishing then it is a insult to every single academic in mass. In many colleges and universities if you do the minimum you get terminated. You have to do more to stand out. Publish papers and books, do significant research (on your own), attend conferences, make agreements on behalf of the institutions with others, start up other organizations. The list goes on and on. It is not THAT hard to find something to do in addition to classwork. So to be called a minority professor and get a free ride because of a blind faith story of a great great great grandparent is pretty weak. Tenure is controversial, just say it to a adjunct and see what happens! You cannot add race,sex, sexual preference, gender identity, religion, color,creed (the band?) into a tenure appointment.

When pressed from the media in the mass about the native american question she spun it to state that she has worked for helping the middle class for the past thirty years. I find that to be frankly insulting and she is becoming weak in her arguments

How EXACTLY is teaching in a Ivory League university considered working for the "middle class". Even by standards in mass that stands out as being crass and naiive.

Even the local newspapers here which can lean to the left are calling her out because this just looks bad.
http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-25/news/31852969_1_harvard-law-school-answer-elizabeth-warren

US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard Law School had been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago.

"But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.

In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet."

This is just like the Scott Thompson case from Yahoo all over again. So if the Federal government says she doesn't qualify to call herself Native American and if Harvard itself says it..then she lied to them, end of story.Dan8267 says

The argument I made is that unless Warren actually believed she was not descendant from Native Americans and claimed it anyway, it's not a lie. A lie is intentionally telling a falsehood. There is nothing unethical about being incorrect. So even if Warren was incorrect, but it was an honest mistake, there is nothing unethical about it.

O so under that argument is the Iraq war made under a good or bad pretense?

Nothing unethical about having a job for years fully knowing that the claim doesn't mean your employers standards?

When people run for office they usually hire people to do background checks and look at everything possible that was written and said about them or from them prior to running. This isn't the 70's or 80's anymore. Like it or not if you say the wrong thing in office or running for office you can be considered rude, incompetent and a outright moron.

Obama misspoke and said "Polish death camps". Obviously he meant Nazi run camps within Poland during world war two. But a mistake of that magnitude by the president in an election year just looks bad.

Remember George Allen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_(U.S._politician)#.22Macaca.22_controversy

He probably didn't even understand what he said but stupidly what he said was a outright racist word in another language.Dan8267 says

In fact, promoting this trumped up controversy is no way to get rid of Affirmative Action. It actually strengthens the argument for AA by claiming that it's still needed by "real minorities".

The only real issues with AA is that what specifically is the criteria to make it either change or end? By what metric is someone considered part of a majority or minority. For example look at Puerto Rico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
They didn't ask for racial status starting from the 1950's..white as a concept was imposed on them. But taking it off and then asking again in 2000 and the majority still considers themselves white. So how would AA apply for someone Puerto Rican if they consider themselves white? If a majority becomes a minority or vice versa does the policy change? Is it looking at a local level, county, state or country?

Warren is afraid of debating and actually talking about issues rather than just stating a stance
http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1061135197

“I was the first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey,” Warren told an audience at the Chicago Humanities Festival in 2011, in a video posted on the CHF website. When asked how Warren knows that, her campaign said: “Elizabeth was making a point about the very serious challenges she faced as a working mom — from taking an all-day bar exam when she was still breast-feeding, to finding work as a lawyer that would accommodate a mom with two small children.”

Winnie Comfort of the New Jersey Judiciary, which administers that state’s bar exam, said there’s no way to verify Warren’s claim. Comfort said women have been taking the New Jersey bar exam since 1895, but she’s not aware their nursing habits were ever tracked."

You don't say things in a political process that you cannot back up. I don't care if you are left or right, local, state or federal. Yes she has debated Marisa twice...months and months ago. To not have a debate for six months prior to the primary is just wrong and is a disservice to the democratic party.

mdovell says

Obama misspoke and said "Polish death camps". Obviously he meant Nazi run camps within Poland during world war two. But a mistake of that magnitude by the president in an election year just looks bad.

It only looks bad to you since you're not a liberal. It's "inside the beltway" nonsense that pales in comparison to real crimes and real foibles, like unprecedented and costly wars for no reason, wouldn't you agree?

Because the Poles are sensitive to this issue internally, we have to make it seem larger than life, right? They have fought for this distinction for a long time, and they are due it. However, they did so because so MANY people have referred to them as "Polish Death Camps", despite the general Pole resistance to the Nazis.

This is only an issue for those who already dislike Obama.

Warren has a lock on the Cherokee vote. Yawn.