The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[Forty Two]

Yes, that was your initial claim. You didn't stick with it, though.

So, unless there was some proof of her motive and purpose for lying in the offing, all we have is the lie. She did it, for whatever reason she may have had at the time.

... Warren is an ineffective senator who rose partly by lying and pretending she's native American and should be a subject of laughter and ridicule.

I did stick with it, although there was, obviously, some discussion also of her lying. It does seem rather absurd to suggest that she honestly believed that she had native American ancestors, but I'll acknowledge that she could be either that stupid or that deluded, and we've been over that before.

She's not native American. She's a Harvard Law Professor - a smart lady. It's pretty reasonable to surmise that she knew what she's talking about. If she was Mit Romney, would you credit these claims of ancestry for a second? If she was Newt Gingrich or Donald Trump, would you for a minute think they "honestly believed" their lore and high cheekbones made them native American?

In regards to Warren, her claim is so absurdly stupid, that a law school graduate, and someone smart enough to succeed on the faculty of both UPenn and Harvard Law, must know that she cannot claim to be a Native American based on some family lore and high cheekbones. She is also very "Progressive" and she must know how insulting such a claim is to Native Americans, who to her are supposed to be a marginalized group whose identity should not be coopted by White Anglo Saxons who have no real evidence that they are in fact any part of that group.

I see you expressing your opinion here, but not bringing any evidence that Warren was lying or perpetrating a falsehood.

Perpetrating a falsehood has been established. We've already been over, endlessly, that lying involves subjective intent, and that one can perpetrate falsehoods (say, about WMD), but not be "lying" in the sense of a deliberate, intentional, knowing lie. In that sense, one can ignore the obvious, be under a delusion, or be rather stupid or gullible, etc., to really believe something incredibly absurd and contrary to the facts presented. This is the case here with Warren. She is a smart, accomplished, educated, lawyer, who became an Ivy League law professor. She knows what "evidence" is. She knows, or should know, what second hand hearsay reported by grandmamma about some ancestor grandmamma never met and has no corroboration of means - and what high cheekbones mean - this is not a stretch. I have already credited that it's possible Warren is so incredibly stupid as to think that constitutes evidence that she is Native American, or she was so deluded and conned by her meemaw and pappaws commentary about their Injun blood that she really, truly, honestly, thought she was Native American. But, those are really the two options. A belief that is not an absurdity or a delusion is not possible here.

You can't possibly say there isn't evidence that she perpetrated a falsehood here. She's not native American. She said over the years, time and time again, that she was. She's not. That's false. Spreading that information is spreading a falsehood.

Again, wouldn't you be laughing your head off if Ted Cruz or Rick Perry tried to do what Warren did? Would you credit them for a second on this? Yes or no.

In regards to Warren, she has evidence that Indians were among her ancestors.

If you consider family lore that has never been verified or corroborated "proof" and the racist claim that high cheekbones make her Native American, well, then that's your standard of evidence.

Uh yeah, I don't think I've ever claimed that Warren had proof, corroborated or otherwise. She does have evidence, however, and your accusation that she's lying or perpetrating a falsehood lacks any support.

The information she's presented is not evidence. High cheekbones is not evidence of being Native American. And, family lore - hearsay passed down from generations ago is not evidence. It's assertion. She does not have any "evidence." If meemaw says we have Mongolian roots because her meemaw said that there was a scandalous affair between meemaw's meemaw's mother and a suave Mongolian, that doesn't evidence my Mongolian heritage. And, that's all Warren has.

We've been over all this. Stop saying I've no "support" for the assertion that she's perpetrating a falsehood here. The claim that she's native American is false, as in lacking any and all reason or factual basis in reality. So when she says she's Native American she is, by definition, perpetrating a falsehood. If she really, truly believes it, then she's not lying. But, that can apply to anyone making an obviously false statement. By the standard you are using, we can never know someone is lying unless they flat out admit it.

I acknowledge that the evidence is rather weak,

Is "rather weak" a euphemism for "bullshit?"

No, it isn't. Her evidence consists of family lore that she has Indian ancestors, one Delaware and one Cherokee. That's not strong evidence, but it's not bullshit either.

That's your assessment, and i don't share it. I think to suggest that one's meemaw reporting what her meemaw may have said ages ago, but which nobody alive was present to hear, and which cannot be verified, is not on a higher level than bullshit. And don't leave out the high cheekbones. We know the morphology of them red injuns, high cheekbones and all. I think I heard Warren wasn't too good with the booze, either. Another strong indicator of her Injun status - can't handle the White Man's Firewater.

but that doesn't negate its existence.

The proof of the claim is that she claims that someone who had no personal knowledge of a fact was told by someone else that some ancestor was native American.

Her mother told her this. Given that the stories speak of people more than one generation removed from her mother, you are correct about the absence of personal knowledge. That doesn't make the stories a fabrication.

Her mother had no personal knowledge. Her mother reported hearsay within hearsay. It's worthless. There is no reason to accept it as fact. It doesn't make her Native American.

Oh, and you know how "they" all have high cheekbones, well so do we in our family. That's the proof whose existence is not negated. Generational hearsay within hearsay, reported by people without personal knowledge of the alleged facts, and claim to debunked racial morphology theory. I have a big dick, so I must have some African DNA.

Her 'high cheekbones' comment is irrelevant to the question of the validity of the family lore.

But it's not irrelevant to the Harvard Law Professor selling a line of bullshit. It shows she's willing to hang her hat on something you find yourself reticent to include in the conversation. I have a rather hooked nose, so I must be Jewish, right? Evidence!

Given that people with even less Indian ancestry than Warren believes she has are considered by recognized Indian nations to be Indians (to the point that one of them is the leader of an Indian nation), her claim cannot be adjudged a lie without evidence.

It can be adjudge false without being adjudged a lie.

Yes it can. However, if that judgement has no evidentiary basis, it carries no weight.

So, let me get this straight, you think that there IS an evidentiary basis to Warren's claim that she is native American, because, well, family lore reported by people who have absolutely know personal knowledge and which is wholly uncorroborated.... and high cheebones....

But, you say there is "no evidentiary basis" and "carries no weight" to say that her claim is false because: (a) Warren's alleged evidence is laughable, (b) high cheekbones don't mean shit, (c) family lore reported by meemaw that someone 4 or 5 generations ago married an Injun girl doesn't make you Indian, (c) genealogists have looked into this and found zero Indian ancestors, (d) the Cherokee nation says she's not Indian, and they go by very detailed roles of members of their tribe, and they say she's not Cherokee, and (e) the only reference to the alleged marriage to the Injun found is in a family newsletter referring to a marriage certificate which does not exist and/or has not been found and nobody can otherwise find a shred of evidence corroborating meemaw's "lore."

So - that's your evaluation of the evidence. You credit Warren with an "evidentiary" basis for her claim, even though she doesn't have any personal knowledge and only reports what her meemaw told her and her mom about what meemaw did not have personal knowledge of either, but says that previous generations reported to her.... supposedly. That's "evidentiary" to you. But, the identities of her parents, grandparents, great grandparents and great great grandparents being known, and not being Indians, that's not "evidence" that she's not a Native American. Genealogists scouring the ancestral landscape - not evidence. Her willingness to sling bullshit like high cheekbones - not evidence. The absence of a marriage certificate or any information corroborating a marriage to a Native American - not evidence.

[Forty Two]

Is there anyone, even one, person in the Republican party who isn't a complete scumbag?

Perhaps Ron Paul. Rand isn't too bad. He may not be a COMPLETE scumbag.

[Forty Two]

A lot of the yelping about how under the ACA people "lost insurance plans that they liked" comes from this. They liked their junk insurance because it was cheap and they'd never tried to use it.

One of the points of the ACA was to make the unaffordable insurance more affordable. Now you're saying that it was actually too inexpensive before, and that what was needed was to make it more expensive to cover more. Weird how that wasn't one of the talking points used to sell Obamacare to the public in 2010..... somebody forgot to put that in the press releases, and the media just missed it -- "Obamacare to Solve the Problem of Cheap Insurance by Raising Prices and Mandating Broader Coverage."

[Forty Two]

Everyone has a pre-existing condition when they get sick and want to make a claim: "I'm sorry Sir, your policy only covers you while you're well."

The point is to buy the insurance before you're sick. Otherwise, it's like waiting until you die to buy a life insurance policy. Oh, my grandpappy died, so I need to by a million dollar life insurance policy. He has a preexisting condition, though, in that he's already dead. That's o.k., just sign here, pay your first month's premium, and we'll process your million dollar claim.

Insurance is a contract in which one party agrees to indemnify another against a predefined category of risks in exchange for a premium. When risks are not predefined, then it's not insurance. It's a benefit plan.

That's one of the big problems with health "insurance" and has been for some time. it shouldn't cover doctor visits or routine care. It should cover risks. Then it would be much cheaper. The problem arises when the government meddles and says that insurance must cover defined benefits, meaning that you don't just get a benefit when a risk arises, but the premium has to cover known costs going forward.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yes, that was your initial claim. You didn't stick with it, though.

So, unless there was some proof of her motive and purpose for lying in the offing, all we have is the lie. She did it, for whatever reason she may have had at the time.

... Warren is an ineffective senator who rose partly by lying and pretending she's native American and should be a subject of laughter and ridicule.

I did stick with it, although there was, obviously, some discussion also of her lying.

Bullshit. You repeatedly said that she is lying.

The rest of your post is you touting your opinions as if they carried any weight. We disagree about whether family lore can be considered evidence, but you have yet to produce any evidence that contradicts it, and therefore your opinion is baseless.

You don't think she honestly believes she has Indian ancestors, so therefore she's "lying" or perpetrating a "falsehood." You have nothing beyond that, and despite your repeated claims to the contrary, you have not "established" either one.

Your asinine accusation that her claim is racist is belied by you trotting out racist stereotypes of your own.

You've studiously avoided mention of Trump's schoolyard taunting that initiated this, and I'm beginning to think it's because you're fine with it.

You're choosing to carry on with your assertion that she's lying about her heritage, but have been silent regarding your initial claim that she used her heritage to advance her career. Have you given up on that?

[L'Emmerdeur]

A lot of the yelping about how under the ACA people "lost insurance plans that they liked" comes from this. They liked their junk insurance because it was cheap and they'd never tried to use it.

One of the points of the ACA was to make the unaffordable insurance more affordable. Now you're saying that it was actually too inexpensive before, and that what was needed was to make it more expensive to cover more.

That isn't what I said, Forty Two, but I've come to expect this sort of mendacity from you.

Weird how that wasn't one of the talking points used to sell Obamacare to the public in 2010..... somebody forgot to put that in the press releases, and the media just missed it -- "Obamacare to Solve the Problem of Cheap Insurance by Raising Prices and Mandating Broader Coverage."

Insurance that proves worthless when it's most needed is nothing but a scam.

[JimC]

And what's Any of this got to do with healthcare?

I think it has a lot to do with mental health care, for which a crying need has been demonstrated by many in this thread...

[Tero]

Trump will make the Doctor pay for visits to him
http://karireport.blogspot.com/2017/07/ ... isits.html

[pErvinalia]

pErvin - I can't keep going on and on about this, and I have to stop dealing with you when you constantly trot out the personal attacks. The moderators are not doing anything about your behavior, so my choices are only to start responding in kind, which is what you want and what will get me the attention of the moderators swiftly.

Bullshit. The level of my attacks is low by historical standards. Saying the you are "bullshitting" or "lying" etc isn't a personal attack. It's an attack on your argument (if it can be called that). Especially when I explicitly explain why it is bullshit.

I've gone around and around, and these attempts by pErvin to troll me and paint me as "dishonest" and "disingenuous"

Fuck off. How do you explain your repeated (otherwise basic) mistakes in interpretation? You're either doing it on purpose (i.e. being disingenuous) or you can't help yourself. Either way, do you expect us to just put up with it? We're not going to. Get yourself an adult colouring-in book and a safe space if you can't deal with this.

[pErvinalia]

Is there anyone, even one, person in the Republican party who isn't a complete scumbag?

There was as time when I thought McCain might be one such person, but then saw his attempt at reasoning and thought while trying to question James Comey at his testimony.

[pErvinalia]

the people have proven to be morons who don't care, so why go the extra length?

That's a fair point.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, that was your initial claim. You didn't stick with it, though.

So, unless there was some proof of her motive and purpose for lying in the offing, all we have is the lie. She did it, for whatever reason she may have had at the time.

... Warren is an ineffective senator who rose partly by lying and pretending she's native American and should be a subject of laughter and ridicule.

I did stick with it, although there was, obviously, some discussion also of her lying. It does seem rather absurd to suggest that she honestly believed that she had native American ancestors, but I'll acknowledge that she could be either that stupid or that deluded, and we've been over that before.

WTF?! If your own mother told you that you have XYZ heritage, why would have to be stupid or deluded to believe her?

Mothers, what good are they even for eh?! All kids should ignore their mothers.

You can't possibly say there isn't evidence that she perpetrated a falsehood here. She's not native American. She said over the years, time and time again, that she was. She's not. That's false. Spreading that information is spreading a falsehood.

Begging the question fallacy.

Again, wouldn't you be laughing your head off if Ted Cruz or Rick Perry tried to do what Warren did?

Possibly. But that doesn't excuse you for making logical fallacies.

We've been over all this. Stop saying I've no "support" for the assertion that she's perpetrating a falsehood here. The claim that she's native American is false, as in lacking any and all reason or factual basis in reality. So when she says she's Native American she is, by definition, perpetrating a falsehood.

Circular reasoning.

You are right when you say we've been over all this before. Problem for you is that last time we went over it, falsehood didn't mean what you thought it meant. Strangely here you are defining falsehood properly, but unfortunately for you it doesn't lead to the conclusion you think it does (due to your use of circular reasoning).

I acknowledge that the evidence is rather weak,

Is "rather weak" a euphemism for "bullshit?"

No, it isn't. Her evidence consists of family lore that she has Indian ancestors, one Delaware and one Cherokee. That's not strong evidence, but it's not bullshit either.

That's your assessment, and i don't share it. I think to suggest that one's meemaw reporting what her meemaw may have said ages ago, but which nobody alive was present to hear, and which cannot be verified, is not on a higher level than bullshit. And don't leave out the high cheekbones. We know the morphology of them red injuns, high cheekbones and all. I think I heard Warren wasn't too good with the booze, either. Another strong indicator of her Injun status - can't handle the White Man's Firewater.

Isn't it possible to accept that in general Amerindian's have higher cheekbones than your average whitey? If so, then her having high cheekbones (personally, they don't look like Amerindian cheekbones to me) can be used as evidence (weak) for a proposition.

Just as an aside, this reminded me of an "aboriginal" friend of mine. She's a fellow activist who I met during the Occupy movement. That movement was very broad and it commonly encompassed indidgenous rights and issues among a host of other issues. At the time she used to say that some aboriginal acquaintances sometimes had suggested that she looked a little aboriginal. I guess it was possible (that some people commented on that), as she had black curly hair, olive skin, and maybe (at a stretch) some facial feature resemblance. She also was fat, like the common stereotype of Aboriginal women elders. But she never claimed to be aboriginal, just that it was a possibility. She had blue eyes, by the way. That's of course not that strange if you are any ethnicity, but Aboriginals do tend to be predominantly brown-eyed. Anyway, I didn't hear much from her for a few years and we had disconnected on facebook. Recently I've reconnected with her and she now claims to be Aboriginal. I'm not sure if some further evidence popped up over the years, but I really hope it's not based on "you kind of slightly just look like one" and that it gives her more activist cred (not that she needed it, she was a prominent activist anyway).

but that doesn't negate its existence.

The proof of the claim is that she claims that someone who had no personal knowledge of a fact was told by someone else that some ancestor was native American.

Her mother told her this. Given that the stories speak of people more than one generation removed from her mother, you are correct about the absence of personal knowledge. That doesn't make the stories a fabrication.

Her mother had no personal knowledge. Her mother reported hearsay within hearsay. It's worthless. There is no reason to accept it as fact.

You are misusing the term "fact" (like you misused the terms truth/falsehood). I don't think anyone here is claiming that this assertion is "fact".

[Scot Dutchy]

I wish Brian would do something about 42's derails.

[Forty Two]

Yes, that was your initial claim. You didn't stick with it, though.

So, unless there was some proof of her motive and purpose for lying in the offing, all we have is the lie. She did it, for whatever reason she may have had at the time.

... Warren is an ineffective senator who rose partly by lying and pretending she's native American and should be a subject of laughter and ridicule.

I did stick with it, although there was, obviously, some discussion also of her lying.

Bullshit. You repeatedly said that she is lying.

We've been talking about both the falsehood bit, and the lying bit. Both.

Do you at least acknowledge that it's false? Unsubstantiated? Completely unfounded? What?

The rest of your post is you touting your opinions as if they carried any weight.

That's absurd. I've offered my opinions, yes. I haven't touted them as if they have "weight" in and of themselves. They have as much weight as yours, that's for sure, and at least I've set forth an argument. That's unlike you - your opinion is just "you can't prove that somewhere in the mists of time Elizabeth Warren didn't have a native American ancestor..." therefore.... what? What's your conclusion? That her assertion is a reasonable one? That her assertion is substantiated? That it's evidence based? That there is good reason to think that she's a Native American? What?

We disagree about whether family lore can be considered evidence,

Let's be specific here. The "lore" in question is that her grandmother told her mom and her that the grandmother's grandmother was an Indian - according to information passed down from people the grandmother never met, and high cheekbones. Yes, it's true, I do not think that's evidence tending to show that Elizabeth Warren's claim to Native American heritage is rationally based, reasonable, or factually supported in any way. You, apparently, believe that if a person's grandmother says that family lore was that there was a Native American ancestor, it's fair to represent to the Harvard community in published materials and biographical materials that one is a minority, Native American professor.

but you have yet to produce any evidence tt contradicts it, and therefore your opinion is baseless.

The lack of a single identified ancestor that is Native American is evidence against it. The fact that the people reporting the family lore have no personal knowledge and are only reporting rumor passed down for four generations by people who couldn't know what they were talking about is evidence against it. The fact that high cheekbones doesn't mean you have native American ancestry, at all, is evidence against it. Etc.

You don't think she honestly believes she has Indian ancestors, so therefore she's "lying" or perpetrating a "falsehood."

I think the the fact that she does not have a single identified Indian ancestor means she's perpetrating a falsehood because even if she had an ancestor deep in the mists of time, it wouldn't make her an Indian. And, the fact that she knows she does not have any native American ancestors identified in the last several generations, coupled with her apparent superior intelligence, law degree, and mental faculties that allowed her to become professor at UPenn and Harvard Law, and apparently does not suffer from excessive gullibility or a deluded mind, shows that she knows she doesn't have an identified Indian ancestor. As such, any claim that her "high cheekbones" and meemaws fairy tales actually make her a Native American are so absurd and her knowledge of that absurdity would tend to show that she knows what she's saying is absurd.

You have nothing beyond that, and despite your repeated claims to the contrary, you have not "established" either one.

I have established that Warren has not established that she is Native American, and that everyone whose looked into it has established that she's not native American, based on her lack of native American ancestry. Her commentary about cheekbones and meemaws tales of how we're 1/64 or 1/32 Cherokee doesn't make the claim reasonable.

Maybe you differ on that. Maybe if Donald Trump said that his grandmother used to say that they were part Algonquin Indian, and that the Trump cheekbones are a lot like Native American cheekbones, you wouldn't laugh at him and call him a liar at all. You'd probably say, well, that Donald Drumpf, I mean, Trump, he is relying on family lore, which makes his claim reasonable, and unless I can prove that he had no ancestor ever that was Algonquin, then I have to assume that Drumpf, I mean, Trump is honestly reporting his true belief that he is Algonquin. I am positive, that when folks memed the fuck out of Donald, and called him "Chief Running Donald" or whatever, and called him a racist for thinking that cheekbones are indicative of being Native American, well, you'd be like "whoa! whoa! not fair! We can't conclusively prove him wrong, so we have to assume that when he published his Algonquin status in the Wharton School of Business yearbooks and Student government materials, he was just reporting family pride, and that there was no motive behind publishing the information at all..." I'm sure if Rick Perry in Texas wrote on his biographical pages that he was the first Comanche Indian governor of Texas, and people said "but, Rick, you don't have a single identified Comanche Indian ancestor? What makes you say you're Comanche? And, Rick responded by saying, that well, in our family we noticed our cheekbones look suspiciously Comanche, and my grandmother said that her grandmother said that we had a Comanche ancestor. You'd be like, well, we can't prove him wrong, and the inability to refute family lore means Rick Perry at least honestly believes he's a Comanche.

Your asinine accusation that her claim is racist is belied by you trotting out racist stereotypes of your own.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/opinions/ ... index.html

But that isn't the only reason Warren should apologize. She has also reinforced racist Native American stereotypes.
Quoting an aunt of hers, Warren said one of her relatives supposedly "had high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do."
I am an enrolled citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation, and I don't have high cheekbones. I have fat cheeks. Folks, cheekbones are not proof of one's indigenous lineage. (By the way, in what America is it OK to say "I have [name a stereotypical physical feature], so that means I am [name a marginalized ethnicity]")?

Says Simon Moya-Smith, of the Oglala-Lakota Nation. So asinine, right?

Nope. But that's a different issue. Trump shouldn't call her Pocahontas. It's childish, stupid, and possible a bit racist. Although in context, he is calling her Pocahontas because Warren is claiming to be a Native American, so that's why it's humorous. If someone says, "Hey, I'm 1/4 Iroquois..." they might joke that he's the Last of the Mohicans, or call him Chingachgook or something. President speaks with forked tongue. You know there'd be jokes.

You're choosing to carry on with your assertion that she's lying about her heritage, but have been silent regarding your initial claim that she used her heritage to advance her career. Have you given up on that?

Given up on that? I've already explained it. How many times do I have to explain it? It looks like she did it to present herself as a minority, Native American, professor at Harvard University Law school, etc. Not sure why she would do it other than to advance her career, but I've already said that I can't prove what's in her head or what her motive was.

Once again, though. I'm going to remind you of your standard of proof and evaluation on other issue. I assume you'll be intellectually honest and apply it consistently. I wonder... did you say that Bush lied about WMD? Have you accused Trump of lying? Well, I'm not going to search you're posts, but I'm sure issues will arise.

[Forty Two]

I wish Brian would do something about 42's derails.

My derail?