Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
It's not Pocahontas

#21
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2018, 01:27 PM by Adam2012.)

(10-17-2018, 01:14 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 12:40 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: This from a guy who fell for a con man's fake story. Is that loving your country - supporting someone for President who is a lazy, doltish con man? You're not feeling love of country. You're just an insecure middle-aged white guy looking for revenge. Hope looking like a sad person is worth it to you.

Ugg, we are back to the "POTUS is lazy" thing again?  That liberal talking points wheel is running out of topics, huh?

Man, Donald Trump saw you coming, didn't he. Remember when he talked about Obama playing golf all the time? That reactionary talking point is kind of embarrassing now isn't it?

Oh, I guess I missed your post about Donald and his new BFF Rod Rosenstein.

And, being a (phony) "small government conservative", I'm sure you posted about the deficit being at a six-year high, and movin' on up! Oh, you didn't post about that? And that debt train is coming down the tracks even faster. I guess you just don't love your country.

Get off your knees.
The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#22

(10-17-2018, 12:57 PM)The Real Joker2 Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 12:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: 1) Unless Warren's DNA test was fraudulent, she definitely has a native ancestor.
2) That native ancestor could have come from any native tribe.  No specific native tribe has any duty to recognize her as a member. They are right that it's about identity, and DNA is only a small part of identity.  Warren, this week anyway, is clearly saying that she only claims native ancestry, not native identity.  These tribes are pushing back on a claim that Warren is not making.
3) DNA is not part of some "settler-colonial" definition.  It's just science.
1) They did not use Cherokee DNA, they used Mexican and other Central American DNA that they think might be related. They also proved that she is a liar. She claimed she was Cherokee at Harvard. Cherokee standards for such claim is 1/16th Cherokee to be eligible. She is at BEST 1/64th and could have as little as 1/1024th. So no, there is not proof.
2 & 3) She claimed Cherokee status at Harvard, google it if you are not aware of the topic. If she was abiding by Cherokee standards, that meant she was claiming she was at least 1/16th Cherokee. It is the entire reason she is being mocked for her false claim.    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-native-ameri/

The link you posted doesn't work. But I did find the politifact article on the topic.
The article confirms what I am saying.
You are equivocating between "native ancestry" and "tribe."
Her native ancestry is small but undeniable.
The Cherokee tribe has the prerogative to set a threshold for membership.  It could be 1/8th, it could be 1/1024th, it wouldn't matter.  Warren never claimed to be a member of the tribe.  She claimed her ancestor was a member.
As for the advantages, again from your article,  "there is no proof Warren gained any special advantage in her career," and "when applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status."
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#23

(10-17-2018, 12:01 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 11:56 AM)rollerjag Wrote: There is no evidence Warren's Native American heritage was a factor in Warren's hiring for a tenured position at Harvard or any other step in her career. The OP is piecing together an unrelated college application (of which I can find no source, one would be helpful, her application to Rutgers Law School says the exact opposite) with his dubious claim of some fathom minority set aside tenured position and arriving at a conclusion which magically supports a disdain of affirmative action. Shocking!

If it's not about the Pocahontas slur, if there's no reason to fear a Warren campaign for POTUS, why does Trump even bring it up? Oh, yeah...he loves to hear the cheers and jeers.

Trump also brought up creepy porn lawyer. Does that mean he fears a CPR campaign? Nope. It's all about pointing out the sheer lunacy of the folks you identify with RJ.

By using a slur based on nothing, done to bring cheers which make him feel loved. You identify with a slug who wows you with [BLEEP].
If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley

[Image: kiWL4mF.jpg]
 
Reply

#24

(10-17-2018, 01:26 PM)Adam2012 Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 01:14 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: Ugg, we are back to the "POTUS is lazy" thing again?  That liberal talking points wheel is running out of topics, huh?

Man, Donald Trump saw you coming, didn't he. Remember when he talked about Obama playing golf all the time? That reactionary talking point is kind of embarrassing now isn't it?

Oh, I guess I missed your post about Donald and his new BFF Rod Rosenstein.

And, being a (phony) "small government conservative", I'm sure you posted about the deficit being at a six-year high, and movin' on up! Oh, you didn't post about that? And that debt train is coming down the tracks even faster. I guess you just don't love your country.

Get off your knees.
In other news- The U.S. is back on top as the most competitive country in the world, regaining the No. 1 spot for the first time since 2008 in an index produced by the World Economic Forum, which said the country could still do better on social issues.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-...ade-1539727213

See I can hijack a thread too!!

Now back to the topic of the Pocahontas.

Sessions had a good one. He announced his DNA test proved he was 1/1028th Tyrannosaurus Rex........proving he was the dinosaur in the senate..........
Reply

#25

(10-17-2018, 01:45 PM)The Real Joker2 Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 01:26 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: Man, Donald Trump saw you coming, didn't he. Remember when he talked about Obama playing golf all the time? That reactionary talking point is kind of embarrassing now isn't it?

Oh, I guess I missed your post about Donald and his new BFF Rod Rosenstein.

And, being a (phony) "small government conservative", I'm sure you posted about the deficit being at a six-year high, and movin' on up! Oh, you didn't post about that? And that debt train is coming down the tracks even faster. I guess you just don't love your country.

Get off your knees.
In other news- The U.S. is back on top as the most competitive country in the world, regaining the No. 1 spot for the first time since 2008 in an index produced by the World Economic Forum, which said the country could still do better on social issues.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-...ade-1539727213

See I can hijack a thread too!!

Now back to the topic of the Pocahontas.

Sessions had a good one. He announced his DNA test proved he was 1/1028th Tyrannosaurus Rex........proving he was the dinosaur in the senate..........

Adam2012's problem is that he doesn't have a job or investments that are allowing him to benefit from the current economy so he is just an angry angry angry man. 

Adam, Portland, OR would make a good new home for you I think.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#26
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2018, 01:53 PM by MalabarJag.)

(10-17-2018, 01:31 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 12:57 PM)The Real Joker2 Wrote: 1) They did not use Cherokee DNA, they used Mexican and other Central American DNA that they think might be related. They also proved that she is a liar. She claimed she was Cherokee at Harvard. Cherokee standards for such claim is 1/16th Cherokee to be eligible. She is at BEST 1/64th and could have as little as 1/1024th. So no, there is not proof.
2 & 3) She claimed Cherokee status at Harvard, google it if you are not aware of the topic. If she was abiding by Cherokee standards, that meant she was claiming she was at least 1/16th Cherokee. It is the entire reason she is being mocked for her false claim.    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-native-ameri/

The link you posted doesn't work. But I did find the politifact article on the topic.
The article confirms what I am saying.
You are equivocating between "native ancestry" and "tribe."
Her native ancestry is small but undeniable.
The Cherokee tribe has the prerogative to set a threshold for membership.  It could be 1/8th, it could be 1/1024th, it wouldn't matter.  Warren never claimed to be a member of the tribe.  She claimed her ancestor was a member.
As for the advantages, again from your article,  "there is no proof Warren gained any special advantage in her career," and "when applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status."

First off, Politifact is a lying piece of left wing extremist [BLEEP]. It's not worth the paper it isn't printed on.

Secondly, she claimed minority status. Whether or not Harvard had an official minority hire policy, they took that into account in hiring and promotions, so yes, she took a slot that someone who actually fit the criteria lost out on. And the minority status position benefited her.

Quote:[img=65x0]https://i0.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/buzz-aldrin-apollo-11-2.jpg?resize=65%2C65&ssl=1[/img][size=undefined][size=undefined]Because claiming minority status [font=Georgia, serif]did and does have value to Warren. Her Native American ancestry claims may not have been a factor in her hiring at Harvard Law, but the University of Pennsylvania listed Warren’s 1994 teaching award in its Minority Equity Report. Harvard Law listed her as Native American in the university’s annual affirmative-action report; administrators listed her as such from 1995 to 2004. It took real action from Warren herself to be listed as Native American at the institutions at which she worked. Minority status adds luster to a résumé in academia.[/font]
[/size][/size]


The full article

At least you, unlike the other 1/1024th Republican (maybe you're 1/64th?), are actually addressing the topic rather than just changing the subject with another random bashing of Trump.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#27

(10-17-2018, 01:31 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 12:57 PM)The Real Joker2 Wrote: 1) They did not use Cherokee DNA, they used Mexican and other Central American DNA that they think might be related. They also proved that she is a liar. She claimed she was Cherokee at Harvard. Cherokee standards for such claim is 1/16th Cherokee to be eligible. She is at BEST 1/64th and could have as little as 1/1024th. So no, there is not proof.
2 & 3) She claimed Cherokee status at Harvard, google it if you are not aware of the topic. If she was abiding by Cherokee standards, that meant she was claiming she was at least 1/16th Cherokee. It is the entire reason she is being mocked for her false claim.    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-native-ameri/

The link you posted doesn't work. But I did find the politifact article on the topic.
The article confirms what I am saying.
You are equivocating between "native ancestry" and "tribe."
Her native ancestry is small but undeniable.
The Cherokee tribe has the prerogative to set a threshold for membership.  It could be 1/8th, it could be 1/1024th, it wouldn't matter.  Warren never claimed to be a member of the tribe.  She claimed her ancestor was a member.
As for the advantages, again from your article,  "there is no proof Warren gained any special advantage in her career," and "when applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status."

So you believe it shows Native American ancestry by using Mexican, Columbian and Peruvian DNA as a substitute for Indian DNA samples?  The fact that it came back with a range of 1/64th to 1/1024th using substitute measures for Indian DNA and yet you still seem to think this proves she was right? That shows how desperate the left is to believe what their masters tell them.
Reply

#28

(10-17-2018, 01:52 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 01:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: The link you posted doesn't work. But I did find the politifact article on the topic.
The article confirms what I am saying.
You are equivocating between "native ancestry" and "tribe."
Her native ancestry is small but undeniable.
The Cherokee tribe has the prerogative to set a threshold for membership.  It could be 1/8th, it could be 1/1024th, it wouldn't matter.  Warren never claimed to be a member of the tribe.  She claimed her ancestor was a member.
As for the advantages, again from your article,  "there is no proof Warren gained any special advantage in her career," and "when applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status."

First off, Politifact is a lying piece of left wing extremist [BLEEP]. It's not worth the paper it isn't printed on.

Secondly, she claimed minority status. Whether or not Harvard had an official minority hire policy, they took that into account in hiring and promotions, so yes, she took a slot that someone who actually fit the criteria lost out on. And the minority status position benefited her.

Quote:[img=65x0]https://i0.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/buzz-aldrin-apollo-11-2.jpg?resize=65%2C65&ssl=1[/img][size=undefined][size=undefined]Because claiming minority status [font=Georgia, serif]did and does have value to Warren. Her Native American ancestry claims may not have been a factor in her hiring at Harvard Law, but the University of Pennsylvania listed Warren’s 1994 teaching award in its Minority Equity Report. Harvard Law listed her as Native American in the university’s annual affirmative-action report; administrators listed her as such from 1995 to 2004. It took real action from Warren herself to be listed as Native American at the institutions at which she worked. Minority status adds luster to a résumé in academia.[/font]
[/size][/size]


The full article

At least you, unlike the other 1/1024th Republican (maybe you're 1/64th?), are actually addressing the topic rather than just changing the subject with another random bashing of Trump.

You do realize you are quoting an opinion piece, don't you? And you and that article are confusing benefits to Warren with benefits to the universities employing her. None of this proves she used her minority status to advance her career. She succeeded because she was qualified. It didn't help her get tenure at Harvard, which is why you moved the goal posts.

If it wasn't for Trump constantly bringing it up, nobody would be talking about this.
If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley

[Image: kiWL4mF.jpg]
 
Reply

#29
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2018, 04:04 PM by The Real Joker2.)

(10-17-2018, 02:21 PM)rollerjag Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 01:52 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: First off, Politifact is a lying piece of left wing extremist [BLEEP]. It's not worth the paper it isn't printed on.

Secondly, she claimed minority status. Whether or not Harvard had an official minority hire policy, they took that into account in hiring and promotions, so yes, she took a slot that someone who actually fit the criteria lost out on. And the minority status position benefited her.



The full article

At least you, unlike the other 1/1024th Republican (maybe you're 1/64th?), are actually addressing the topic rather than just changing the subject with another random bashing of Trump.

You do realize you are quoting an opinion piece, don't you? And you and that article are confusing benefits to Warren with benefits to the universities employing her. None of this proves she used her minority status to advance her career. She succeeded because she was qualified. It didn't help her get tenure at Harvard, which is why you moved the goal posts.

If it wasn't for Trump constantly bringing it up, nobody would be talking about this.
You think Harvard was touting her as a minority, but she received no advantages from that? LMAO, you are indeed gullible.  Simple, she used the Native American claim to further her bona fides as a minority professor at Harvard.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_poli...amily_tree
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#30

Warren also lied about her parents having to elope.
Reply

#31

(10-17-2018, 02:12 PM)The Real Joker2 Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 01:31 PM)mikesez Wrote: The link you posted doesn't work. But I did find the politifact article on the topic.
The article confirms what I am saying.
You are equivocating between "native ancestry" and "tribe."
Her native ancestry is small but undeniable.
The Cherokee tribe has the prerogative to set a threshold for membership.  It could be 1/8th, it could be 1/1024th, it wouldn't matter.  Warren never claimed to be a member of the tribe.  She claimed her ancestor was a member.
As for the advantages, again from your article,  "there is no proof Warren gained any special advantage in her career," and "when applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status."

So you believe it shows Native American ancestry by using Mexican, Columbian and Peruvian DNA as a substitute for Indian DNA samples?  The fact that it came back with a range of 1/64th to 1/1024th using substitute measures for Indian DNA and yet you still seem to think this proves she was right? That shows how desperate the left is to believe what their masters tell them.

It is very hard to find a sufficient number of "pure" natives in North America to attach a DNA signature just to them.  That's why they bring in natives from other regions of the Americas.  There are much more remaining natives in Latin America than here.  Over the entire Americas, the natives had very little genetic diversity.  Now, say you're right, and Elizabeth Warren's stray DNA actually came from Mexico or Colombia or Peru?  How do you explain THAT?  Wouldn't that be a minority too?  Didn't Christopher Columbus and those who came after him equally call such people "Indians"?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#32

(10-17-2018, 01:20 PM)Adam2012 Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 01:16 PM)The Real Joker2 Wrote: I bet your DNA test will show 1/1028th German heritage..  So you are speaking about yourself.

Wow - what a comeback. Hope you didn't spend too much time on that one. Talk about missing the point.

In fairness, when everyone is a Nazi then no one really is.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#33
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2018, 04:01 PM by The Real Joker2.)

(10-17-2018, 03:43 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 02:12 PM)The Real Joker2 Wrote: So you believe it shows Native American ancestry by using Mexican, Columbian and Peruvian DNA as a substitute for Indian DNA samples?  The fact that it came back with a range of 1/64th to 1/1024th using substitute measures for Indian DNA and yet you still seem to think this proves she was right? That shows how desperate the left is to believe what their masters tell them.

It is very hard to find a sufficient number of "pure" natives in North America to attach a DNA signature just to them.  That's why they bring in natives from other regions of the Americas.  There are much more remaining natives in Latin America than here.  Over the entire Americas, the natives had very little genetic diversity.  Now, say you're right, and Elizabeth Warren's stray DNA actually came from Mexico or Colombia or Peru?  How do you explain THAT?  Wouldn't that be a minority too?  Didn't Christopher Columbus and those who came after him equally call such people "Indians"?
You could have stopped at the bolded. However, I applaud the tap dance around the word "Native" as in Native American. Kudos!  Again, AT most the DNA proved she was between 0.1% and 1.6% Columbian/Peruvian/Mexican. It did not prove Native American as she claimed. She was not correct. Not even close to correct.
http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/2012/...art-1.html
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#34

Her DNA will prove that she is indeed 96.8% witch.
Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 
Reply

#35

DNA test proves Warren is a liar.
Nothing more or less I'd say.
Reply

#36
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2018, 04:05 PM by TJBender.)

Trump plays Warren as an enemy so his base has someone to actively hate. It's that simple.

Also, anyone who likes a free market economy and not paying 70% income tax should hate her.

(10-17-2018, 04:02 PM)Jagwired Wrote: Her DNA will prove that she is indeed 96.8% witch.

Pair her up with Hillary and we've got 2/3rds of a Hocus Pocus sequel!
Reply

#37

(10-17-2018, 04:04 PM)TJBender Wrote: Trump plays Warren as an enemy so his base has someone to actively hate. It's that simple.

Also, anyone who likes a free market economy and not paying 70% income tax should hate her.

(10-17-2018, 04:02 PM)Jagwired Wrote: Her DNA will prove that she is indeed 96.8% witch.

Pair her up with Hillary and we've got 2/3rds of a Hocus Pocus sequel!

Trump doesn't need to play up Warren so the base has someone to hate.
The leftist politicians do enough daily to keep the hate going.
From the crazy Cali's to the East Coast dummies. Every time a donkey talks an elephant has nightmares of a socialistic future.

Seriously though.... You think Trumps "base" which I feel is a term used to describe, "poor, racist, whites" needs this Warren nonsense to still go out and vote?
After all the garbage that has gone down in DC fully covered like a red carpet ceremony and award show?

Nah man... "the base" is fired up plenty.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#38

(10-17-2018, 03:53 PM)The Real Joker2 Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 03:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: It is very hard to find a sufficient number of "pure" natives in North America to attach a DNA signature just to them.  That's why they bring in natives from other regions of the Americas.  There are much more remaining natives in Latin America than here.  Over the entire Americas, the natives had very little genetic diversity.  Now, say you're right, and Elizabeth Warren's stray DNA actually came from Mexico or Colombia or Peru?  How do you explain THAT?  Wouldn't that be a minority too?  Didn't Christopher Columbus and those who came after him equally call such people "Indians"?
You could have stopped at the bolded. However, I applaud the tap dance around the word "Native" as in Native American. Kudos!  Again, AT most the DNA proved she was between 0.1% and 1.6% Columbian/Peruvian/Mexican. It did not prove Native American as she claimed. She was not correct. Not even close to correct.
http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/2012/...art-1.html

So you accept that Warren's genes have "Columbian/Peruvian/Mexican" signatures.  How did those get in there? Is there any possible explanation other than the idea that native DNA in the US, ten generations ago, looked the same as this "Columbian/Peruvian/Mexican" looks today?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#39

Note that Warren did not publish results obtained via the regular DNA services ancestry.com and 23and me. I'm certain she submitted a sample to each site and did not like the results she got back. Clearly she was going to need some "expert" advice.

Her Stanford expert is operating under the theory that the indigenous peoples of South America have the same ancestors as the indigenous peoples of North America. It's a convenient theory which allows him to pretend he's testing for "native american" DNA even though he has none for comparison.
Reply

#40

(10-17-2018, 03:43 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(10-17-2018, 02:12 PM)The Real Joker2 Wrote: So you believe it shows Native American ancestry by using Mexican, Columbian and Peruvian DNA as a substitute for Indian DNA samples?  The fact that it came back with a range of 1/64th to 1/1024th using substitute measures for Indian DNA and yet you still seem to think this proves she was right? That shows how desperate the left is to believe what their masters tell them.

It is very hard to find a sufficient number of "pure" natives in North America to attach a DNA signature just to them.  That's why they bring in natives from other regions of the Americas.  There are much more remaining natives in Latin America than here.  Over the entire Americas, the natives had very little genetic diversity.  Now, say you're right, and Elizabeth Warren's stray DNA actually came from Mexico or Colombia or Peru?  How do you explain THAT?  Wouldn't that be a minority too?  Didn't Christopher Columbus and those who came after him equally call such people "Indians"?

Regarding the part in bold, I have no idea where you get that from.  Visit New Mexico or Arizona sometime.  There are plenty of "pure" Native Americans there.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!