(10-09-2019 01:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle...tory.html?
The Elizabeth Warren pregnancy smear shows how poisoned the media world is

Quote:A news report can be narrowly factual, and still plenty unfair.

And so it was with a “revelation” regarding one element of Elizabeth Warren’s personal history, oft-told on the campaign trail: That her 1971 pregnancy caused the 22-year-old to be “shown the door” as a public-school teacher in New Jersey — an unwanted career change that put her on the path to law school and public life. (Warren, of course, is now a Democratic Massachusetts senator who is a leading 2020 presidential candidate.)

The conservative Washington Free Beacon’s new top editor, Eliana Johnson, late of Politico and the National Review, kicked off the contretemps with a report Monday that dug up the minutes from the Riverdale, N.J., school board showing that Warren had been offered another term and that her eventual resignation was accepted with regret.

The headline: “County Records Contradict Warren’s Claim She Was Fired Over Pregnancy.”

Shockingly, nowhere on these documents is it stamped: “The all-male board fired this young woman because she was pregnant and because of its deep-seated misogyny.” (And, more seriously, nowhere in the story is it indicated that the renewal offer likely came before school district honchos knew Warren was pregnant.)

Conservatives and pro-Trumpers gobbled it up — and spit back out an amped-up version, one less tethered to facts. The poisoned version quickly spread into the larger mediasphere.

“Another Elizabeth Warren Lie About Elizabeth Warren?” tweeted Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, who — credit where due — does have proven expertise on the subject of lying.

The right-wing Federalist agreed “lie” was the right word with its headline: “Records Show Elizabeth Warren Lied About Being Fired For Being ‘Visibly Pregnant’.”

An embedded video kept it even simpler: “Warren Lied.”

Before you knew it, Fox News, in its wisdom, had jumped in. The chyron: “Warren Facing New Credibility Questions.”

Fox anchor Dana Perino assembled some pundits to consider it — among them Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under George W. Bush, who framed it as a troubling “character issue” for Warren. This gave Fox a chance to revisit Warren’s earlier blunder over claiming significant Native American ancestry.

Of course, it’s one of the jobs of the press to scrutinize presidential candidates — to “scrub” them, in the journalistic lingo.

Elizabeth Warren is no different, liberal darling though she is.

As the Free Beacon’s Johnson told Vox, “foundational myths” spun on the campaign trail deserve skepticism: “It seems to me that these sorts of claims, whether it’s Democrats or Republicans making them, warrant scrutiny.”

Fair enough. And Warren’s campaign seemed to have made a tactical mistake by not responding immediately, though they were given the opportunity by the Free Beacon,according to its story.

If Warren had shot back as cannily to this as she did to the recent absurd report that she’d had an affair with a 24-year-old Marine (she wittily tweeted out an image of her alma mater, the University of Houston and their mascots, the Cougars), she could have swatted this away.

It wasn’t until the next day that some much-needed perspective began to emerge, thanks to a CBS News report.

It included crucial context that would have been ever-so-helpful in the initial piece, like this interview with a retired Riverdale teacher, Trudy Randall:

“The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant. Now, if you didn’t tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn’t know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer. But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant.”

It also included an interview with Warren about why the board originally renewed her contract and even gave her a provisional pass on some other training she needed to continue as a speech pathologist:

“I was pregnant, but nobody knew it,” Warren said. “And then a couple of months later when I was six months pregnant and it was pretty obvious, the principal called me in, wished me luck, and said he was going to hire someone else for the job.”

The CBS piece also takes on another aspect of the Free Beacon’s story — that Warren in 2007 explained her departure from teaching without mentioning being fired. She told CBS that going into elective politics caused her to become more open about that aspect of her past — and, in effect, to air the workplace discrimination that was rampant then and has never fully disappeared, despite being outlawed in the late 1970s.

It all seems to track: There is no big controversy here. No apparent lie and no “character issue” that should unduly concern the voting public.

If there is a scandal here, it’s how — in the bad-faith media world — narrowly presented facts without sufficient context can do unfair harm.

They can and will be weaponized, falsely regurgitated and twisted beyond recognition.

The only thing missing from this mini-saga is President Trump’s custom-made insult. Stand by for that.

She wasnt properly accredited for the job she had. Read that over and over until you get it.

Quote:If there is a scandal here, it’s how — in the bad-faith media world — narrowly presented facts without sufficient context can do unfair harm.

They can and will be weaponized, falsely regurgitated and twisted beyond recognition.

That has been the Washington Post’s trademark for my whole life.

(10-09-2019 02:13 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:If there is a scandal here, it’s how — in the bad-faith media world — narrowly presented facts without sufficient context can do unfair harm.

They can and will be weaponized, falsely regurgitated and twisted beyond recognition.

That has been the Washington Post’s trademark for my whole life.

some really need to study up on William Randoph Hearst...

(10-09-2019 10:36 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  For those of you that don't want to open links.

Quote:Washington Free Beacon: “Minutes of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a “2nd year” contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job. That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. Minutes from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren’s resignation was ‘accepted with regret.'”

I knew she was full of schit on this claim from day one.

Why? Cause my own mother was pregnant in 1962, 1965-66 and again 68-69. She taught consistently for 42 yrs., only taking time off as was necessary and it was always voluntary, brief and she returned to her same position.

THIS additional lie was supposed to be '71, seriously doubt it.

My question is why and what is her apparent need to be some sort of victim or part of some particular protected class.

You're rich, white and a liberal. Why the constant need to try and be something you're not?


Oh, wait. N/M

If only WaPo put this much effort into RussiaGate. Ofcourse they still missed a salient point she was not fully credentialed. Also missed the creepy fact she was 13 dating a 17 year (future husband) as a minor.

If the roles were reversed...those facts would be front and center if this was about Trump or most republicans.

(10-09-2019 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:36 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  For those of you that don't want to open links.

Quote:Washington Free Beacon: “Minutes of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a “2nd year” contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job. That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. Minutes from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren’s resignation was ‘accepted with regret.'”

I knew she was full of schit on this claim from day one.

Why? Cause my own mother was pregnant in 1962, 1965-66 and again 68-69. She taught consistently for 42 yrs., only taking time off as was necessary and it was always voluntary, brief and she returned to her same position.

THIS additional lie was supposed to be '71, seriously doubt it.

My question is why and what is her apparent need to be some sort of victim or part of some particular protected class.

You're rich, white and a liberal. Why the constant need to try and be something you're not?


Oh, wait. N/M

Yep.....she has a powerful need to be a victim of something...anything!!!

What is it that drives libs to victimhood???

(10-09-2019 01:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle...tory.html?
The Elizabeth Warren pregnancy smear shows how poisoned the media world is

Quote:A news report can be narrowly factual, and still plenty unfair.

And so it was with a “revelation” regarding one element of Elizabeth Warren’s personal history, oft-told on the campaign trail: That her 1971 pregnancy caused the 22-year-old to be “shown the door” as a public-school teacher in New Jersey — an unwanted career change that put her on the path to law school and public life. (Warren, of course, is now a Democratic Massachusetts senator who is a leading 2020 presidential candidate.)

The conservative Washington Free Beacon’s new top editor, Eliana Johnson, late of Politico and the National Review, kicked off the contretemps with a report Monday that dug up the minutes from the Riverdale, N.J., school board showing that Warren had been offered another term and that her eventual resignation was accepted with regret.

The headline: “County Records Contradict Warren’s Claim She Was Fired Over Pregnancy.”

Shockingly, nowhere on these documents is it stamped: “The all-male board fired this young woman because she was pregnant and because of its deep-seated misogyny.” (And, more seriously, nowhere in the story is it indicated that the renewal offer likely came before school district honchos knew Warren was pregnant.)

Conservatives and pro-Trumpers gobbled it up — and spit back out an amped-up version, one less tethered to facts. The poisoned version quickly spread into the larger mediasphere.

“Another Elizabeth Warren Lie About Elizabeth Warren?” tweeted Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, who — credit where due — does have proven expertise on the subject of lying.

The right-wing Federalist agreed “lie” was the right word with its headline: “Records Show Elizabeth Warren Lied About Being Fired For Being ‘Visibly Pregnant’.”

An embedded video kept it even simpler: “Warren Lied.”

Before you knew it, Fox News, in its wisdom, had jumped in. The chyron: “Warren Facing New Credibility Questions.”

Fox anchor Dana Perino assembled some pundits to consider it — among them Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under George W. Bush, who framed it as a troubling “character issue” for Warren. This gave Fox a chance to revisit Warren’s earlier blunder over claiming significant Native American ancestry.

Of course, it’s one of the jobs of the press to scrutinize presidential candidates — to “scrub” them, in the journalistic lingo.

Elizabeth Warren is no different, liberal darling though she is.

As the Free Beacon’s Johnson told Vox, “foundational myths” spun on the campaign trail deserve skepticism: “It seems to me that these sorts of claims, whether it’s Democrats or Republicans making them, warrant scrutiny.”

Fair enough. And Warren’s campaign seemed to have made a tactical mistake by not responding immediately, though they were given the opportunity by the Free Beacon,according to its story.

If Warren had shot back as cannily to this as she did to the recent absurd report that she’d had an affair with a 24-year-old Marine (she wittily tweeted out an image of her alma mater, the University of Houston and their mascots, the Cougars), she could have swatted this away.

It wasn’t until the next day that some much-needed perspective began to emerge, thanks to a CBS News report.

It included crucial context that would have been ever-so-helpful in the initial piece, like this interview with a retired Riverdale teacher, Trudy Randall:

“The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant. Now, if you didn’t tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn’t know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer. But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant.”

It also included an interview with Warren about why the board originally renewed her contract and even gave her a provisional pass on some other training she needed to continue as a speech pathologist:

“I was pregnant, but nobody knew it,” Warren said. “And then a couple of months later when I was six months pregnant and it was pretty obvious, the principal called me in, wished me luck, and said he was going to hire someone else for the job.”

The CBS piece also takes on another aspect of the Free Beacon’s story — that Warren in 2007 explained her departure from teaching without mentioning being fired. She told CBS that going into elective politics caused her to become more open about that aspect of her past — and, in effect, to air the workplace discrimination that was rampant then and has never fully disappeared, despite being outlawed in the late 1970s.

It all seems to track: There is no big controversy here. No apparent lie and no “character issue” that should unduly concern the voting public.

If there is a scandal here, it’s how — in the bad-faith media world — narrowly presented facts without sufficient context can do unfair harm.

They can and will be weaponized, falsely regurgitated and twisted beyond recognition.

The only thing missing from this mini-saga is President Trump’s custom-made insult. Stand by for that.

So let me make sure I understand your issue..

Warren claimed she was fired for being pregnant.
Facts prove she wasn't.

But conservatives are the jerks because they call her out...

(10-09-2019 02:33 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 01:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle...tory.html?
The Elizabeth Warren pregnancy smear shows how poisoned the media world is

Quote:A news report can be narrowly factual, and still plenty unfair.

And so it was with a “revelation” regarding one element of Elizabeth Warren’s personal history, oft-told on the campaign trail: That her 1971 pregnancy caused the 22-year-old to be “shown the door” as a public-school teacher in New Jersey — an unwanted career change that put her on the path to law school and public life. (Warren, of course, is now a Democratic Massachusetts senator who is a leading 2020 presidential candidate.)

The conservative Washington Free Beacon’s new top editor, Eliana Johnson, late of Politico and the National Review, kicked off the contretemps with a report Monday that dug up the minutes from the Riverdale, N.J., school board showing that Warren had been offered another term and that her eventual resignation was accepted with regret.

The headline: “County Records Contradict Warren’s Claim She Was Fired Over Pregnancy.”

Shockingly, nowhere on these documents is it stamped: “The all-male board fired this young woman because she was pregnant and because of its deep-seated misogyny.” (And, more seriously, nowhere in the story is it indicated that the renewal offer likely came before school district honchos knew Warren was pregnant.)

Conservatives and pro-Trumpers gobbled it up — and spit back out an amped-up version, one less tethered to facts. The poisoned version quickly spread into the larger mediasphere.

“Another Elizabeth Warren Lie About Elizabeth Warren?” tweeted Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, who — credit where due — does have proven expertise on the subject of lying.

The right-wing Federalist agreed “lie” was the right word with its headline: “Records Show Elizabeth Warren Lied About Being Fired For Being ‘Visibly Pregnant’.”

An embedded video kept it even simpler: “Warren Lied.”

Before you knew it, Fox News, in its wisdom, had jumped in. The chyron: “Warren Facing New Credibility Questions.”

Fox anchor Dana Perino assembled some pundits to consider it — among them Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under George W. Bush, who framed it as a troubling “character issue” for Warren. This gave Fox a chance to revisit Warren’s earlier blunder over claiming significant Native American ancestry.

Of course, it’s one of the jobs of the press to scrutinize presidential candidates — to “scrub” them, in the journalistic lingo.

Elizabeth Warren is no different, liberal darling though she is.

As the Free Beacon’s Johnson told Vox, “foundational myths” spun on the campaign trail deserve skepticism: “It seems to me that these sorts of claims, whether it’s Democrats or Republicans making them, warrant scrutiny.”

Fair enough. And Warren’s campaign seemed to have made a tactical mistake by not responding immediately, though they were given the opportunity by the Free Beacon,according to its story.

If Warren had shot back as cannily to this as she did to the recent absurd report that she’d had an affair with a 24-year-old Marine (she wittily tweeted out an image of her alma mater, the University of Houston and their mascots, the Cougars), she could have swatted this away.

It wasn’t until the next day that some much-needed perspective began to emerge, thanks to a CBS News report.

It included crucial context that would have been ever-so-helpful in the initial piece, like this interview with a retired Riverdale teacher, Trudy Randall:

“The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant. Now, if you didn’t tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn’t know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer. But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant.”

It also included an interview with Warren about why the board originally renewed her contract and even gave her a provisional pass on some other training she needed to continue as a speech pathologist:

“I was pregnant, but nobody knew it,” Warren said. “And then a couple of months later when I was six months pregnant and it was pretty obvious, the principal called me in, wished me luck, and said he was going to hire someone else for the job.”

The CBS piece also takes on another aspect of the Free Beacon’s story — that Warren in 2007 explained her departure from teaching without mentioning being fired. She told CBS that going into elective politics caused her to become more open about that aspect of her past — and, in effect, to air the workplace discrimination that was rampant then and has never fully disappeared, despite being outlawed in the late 1970s.

It all seems to track: There is no big controversy here. No apparent lie and no “character issue” that should unduly concern the voting public.

If there is a scandal here, it’s how — in the bad-faith media world — narrowly presented facts without sufficient context can do unfair harm.

They can and will be weaponized, falsely regurgitated and twisted beyond recognition.

The only thing missing from this mini-saga is President Trump’s custom-made insult. Stand by for that.

So let me make sure I understand your issue..

Warren claimed she was fired for being pregnant.
Facts prove she wasn't.

But conservatives are the jerks because they call her out...

I quote an opinion piece that was topical. Nowhere did I say what MY issue was.

(10-09-2019 02:38 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:33 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 01:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle...tory.html?
The Elizabeth Warren pregnancy smear shows how poisoned the media world is

Quote:A news report can be narrowly factual, and still plenty unfair.

And so it was with a “revelation” regarding one element of Elizabeth Warren’s personal history, oft-told on the campaign trail: That her 1971 pregnancy caused the 22-year-old to be “shown the door” as a public-school teacher in New Jersey — an unwanted career change that put her on the path to law school and public life. (Warren, of course, is now a Democratic Massachusetts senator who is a leading 2020 presidential candidate.)

The conservative Washington Free Beacon’s new top editor, Eliana Johnson, late of Politico and the National Review, kicked off the contretemps with a report Monday that dug up the minutes from the Riverdale, N.J., school board showing that Warren had been offered another term and that her eventual resignation was accepted with regret.

The headline: “County Records Contradict Warren’s Claim She Was Fired Over Pregnancy.”

Shockingly, nowhere on these documents is it stamped: “The all-male board fired this young woman because she was pregnant and because of its deep-seated misogyny.” (And, more seriously, nowhere in the story is it indicated that the renewal offer likely came before school district honchos knew Warren was pregnant.)

Conservatives and pro-Trumpers gobbled it up — and spit back out an amped-up version, one less tethered to facts. The poisoned version quickly spread into the larger mediasphere.

“Another Elizabeth Warren Lie About Elizabeth Warren?” tweeted Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, who — credit where due — does have proven expertise on the subject of lying.

The right-wing Federalist agreed “lie” was the right word with its headline: “Records Show Elizabeth Warren Lied About Being Fired For Being ‘Visibly Pregnant’.”

An embedded video kept it even simpler: “Warren Lied.”

Before you knew it, Fox News, in its wisdom, had jumped in. The chyron: “Warren Facing New Credibility Questions.”

Fox anchor Dana Perino assembled some pundits to consider it — among them Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under George W. Bush, who framed it as a troubling “character issue” for Warren. This gave Fox a chance to revisit Warren’s earlier blunder over claiming significant Native American ancestry.

Of course, it’s one of the jobs of the press to scrutinize presidential candidates — to “scrub” them, in the journalistic lingo.

Elizabeth Warren is no different, liberal darling though she is.

As the Free Beacon’s Johnson told Vox, “foundational myths” spun on the campaign trail deserve skepticism: “It seems to me that these sorts of claims, whether it’s Democrats or Republicans making them, warrant scrutiny.”

Fair enough. And Warren’s campaign seemed to have made a tactical mistake by not responding immediately, though they were given the opportunity by the Free Beacon,according to its story.

If Warren had shot back as cannily to this as she did to the recent absurd report that she’d had an affair with a 24-year-old Marine (she wittily tweeted out an image of her alma mater, the University of Houston and their mascots, the Cougars), she could have swatted this away.

It wasn’t until the next day that some much-needed perspective began to emerge, thanks to a CBS News report.

It included crucial context that would have been ever-so-helpful in the initial piece, like this interview with a retired Riverdale teacher, Trudy Randall:

“The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant. Now, if you didn’t tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn’t know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer. But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant.”

It also included an interview with Warren about why the board originally renewed her contract and even gave her a provisional pass on some other training she needed to continue as a speech pathologist:

“I was pregnant, but nobody knew it,” Warren said. “And then a couple of months later when I was six months pregnant and it was pretty obvious, the principal called me in, wished me luck, and said he was going to hire someone else for the job.”

The CBS piece also takes on another aspect of the Free Beacon’s story — that Warren in 2007 explained her departure from teaching without mentioning being fired. She told CBS that going into elective politics caused her to become more open about that aspect of her past — and, in effect, to air the workplace discrimination that was rampant then and has never fully disappeared, despite being outlawed in the late 1970s.

It all seems to track: There is no big controversy here. No apparent lie and no “character issue” that should unduly concern the voting public.

If there is a scandal here, it’s how — in the bad-faith media world — narrowly presented facts without sufficient context can do unfair harm.

They can and will be weaponized, falsely regurgitated and twisted beyond recognition.

The only thing missing from this mini-saga is President Trump’s custom-made insult. Stand by for that.

So let me make sure I understand your issue..

Warren claimed she was fired for being pregnant.
Facts prove she wasn't.

But conservatives are the jerks because they call her out...

I quote an opinion piece that was topical. Nowhere did I say what MY issue was.

Well my question is why are you quoting it or linking it? There must be a reason other than it's another day when you're not honoring your word to UTSAMarine.

(10-09-2019 11:28 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 11:25 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  In other words, instead of spreading her legs and getting pregnant, she proabably should have used that time to get properly accredited for the teaching job she held.

once a liar in lock step, always a liar moving forward....

she doesn't have a chance....I'm begging she gains the nomination....

Loved the Lieawatha!

Since she wants to be commander in Chief, I had considered Spreading Bull! Or possibly Crazy Whores!

(10-09-2019 02:13 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:If there is a scandal here, it’s how — in the bad-faith media world — narrowly presented facts without sufficient context can do unfair harm.

They can and will be weaponized, falsely regurgitated and twisted beyond recognition.

That has been the Washington Post’s trademark for my whole life.

Yup.

One of my Dad's bumperstickers on the '68 Cutlass was pretty succinct- "I don't believe what the Washington Post says". Yea, he worked in D.C....


Course, another was "WARNING! I speed up to run over small animals"

Yea, he was one of the original "Those guys".

(10-09-2019 02:32 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:36 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  For those of you that don't want to open links.

Quote:Washington Free Beacon: “Minutes of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a “2nd year” contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job. That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. Minutes from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren’s resignation was ‘accepted with regret.'”

I knew she was full of schit on this claim from day one.

Why? Cause my own mother was pregnant in 1962, 1965-66 and again 68-69. She taught consistently for 42 yrs., only taking time off as was necessary and it was always voluntary, brief and she returned to her same position.

THIS additional lie was supposed to be '71, seriously doubt it.

My question is why and what is her apparent need to be some sort of victim or part of some particular protected class.

You're rich, white and a liberal. Why the constant need to try and be something you're not?


Oh, wait. N/M

Yep.....she has a powerful need to be a victim of something...anything!!!

What is it that drives libs to victimhood???

It's obviously not only her. For some reason, there is a huge societal need amongst a large portion of the population to be a victim. Not sure really why as I don't think that way. Maybe it's to seek attention, to manipulate, to control? I can't wrap my head around that type of mentality.

(10-09-2019 02:32 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:36 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  For those of you that don't want to open links.

Quote:Washington Free Beacon: “Minutes of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a “2nd year” contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job. That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. Minutes from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren’s resignation was ‘accepted with regret.'”

I knew she was full of schit on this claim from day one.

Why? Cause my own mother was pregnant in 1962, 1965-66 and again 68-69. She taught consistently for 42 yrs., only taking time off as was necessary and it was always voluntary, brief and she returned to her same position.

THIS additional lie was supposed to be '71, seriously doubt it.

My question is why and what is her apparent need to be some sort of victim or part of some particular protected class.

You're rich, white and a liberal. Why the constant need to try and be something you're not?


Oh, wait. N/M

Yep.....she has a powerful need to be a victim of something...anything!!!

What is it that drives libs to victimhood???

Honky guilt.

(10-09-2019 02:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:32 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:36 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  For those of you that don't want to open links.

Quote:Washington Free Beacon: “Minutes of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a “2nd year” contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job. That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. Minutes from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren’s resignation was ‘accepted with regret.'”

I knew she was full of schit on this claim from day one.

Why? Cause my own mother was pregnant in 1962, 1965-66 and again 68-69. She taught consistently for 42 yrs., only taking time off as was necessary and it was always voluntary, brief and she returned to her same position.

THIS additional lie was supposed to be '71, seriously doubt it.

My question is why and what is her apparent need to be some sort of victim or part of some particular protected class.

You're rich, white and a liberal. Why the constant need to try and be something you're not?


Oh, wait. N/M

Yep.....she has a powerful need to be a victim of something...anything!!!

What is it that drives libs to victimhood???

Honky guilt.

She could be honest and claim to be a victim of privilege but somehow I don't think that truth would sell well to her would be constituency.

(10-09-2019 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:32 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:36 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  For those of you that don't want to open links.

I knew she was full of schit on this claim from day one.

Why? Cause my own mother was pregnant in 1962, 1965-66 and again 68-69. She taught consistently for 42 yrs., only taking time off as was necessary and it was always voluntary, brief and she returned to her same position.

THIS additional lie was supposed to be '71, seriously doubt it.

My question is why and what is her apparent need to be some sort of victim or part of some particular protected class.

You're rich, white and a liberal. Why the constant need to try and be something you're not?


Oh, wait. N/M

Yep.....she has a powerful need to be a victim of something...anything!!!

What is it that drives libs to victimhood???

Honky guilt.

She could be honest and claim to be a victim of privilege but somehow I don't think that truth would sell well to her would be constituency.

Why not? Seems to have worked wonders for the Beta.

Trump is more honest than Pocahontas


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-09-2019 02:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:32 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  My question is why and what is her apparent need to be some sort of victim or part of some particular protected class.

Yep.....she has a powerful need to be a victim of something...anything!!!

What is it that drives libs to victimhood???

It's obviously not only her. For some reason, there is a huge societal need amongst a large portion of the population to be a victim. Not sure really why as I don't think that way. Maybe it's to seek attention, to manipulate, to control? I can't wrap my head around that type of mentality.

In the minds of certain people, “Victimhood” confers “Moral Authority”. And, to those same people, “Moral Authority” comes with the power to get your way, to push people around if they won’t do as you wish.

(10-09-2019 04:57 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:32 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  My question is why and what is her apparent need to be some sort of victim or part of some particular protected class.

Yep.....she has a powerful need to be a victim of something...anything!!!

What is it that drives libs to victimhood???

It's obviously not only her. For some reason, there is a huge societal need amongst a large portion of the population to be a victim. Not sure really why as I don't think that way. Maybe it's to seek attention, to manipulate, to control? I can't wrap my head around that type of mentality.

In the minds of certain people, “Victimhood” confers “Moral Authority”. And, to those same people, “Moral Authority” comes with the power to get your way, to push people around if they won’t do as you wish.

You can trace it back to James Cone's "God of the Oppressed" which categorically states that the victim is free of sin and cannot sin when retaliating against his/her oppressor. Interestingly this is the most heretical point in Liberation Theology. The Bible plainly states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and stresses forgiveness instead of retaliation. But, if you are a Marxist and trying to infiltrate mainline denominations in an attempt to alter their thinking and actions then twisting this point is essential to accomplishing your ends. And since Cone's book is required reading in all mainline protestant seminaries (except for some Southern Baptist and the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church) this heresy has gained quite the toehold in our churches. And in the U.S. that lends credibility and moral authority which is why debunking Cone is so essential. However, since all that attempt to do so are labelled as "racists" simply for pointing out the obvious contradictions between Cone's tenets and sound Christian doctrine there are few who take on this task. Fear of label is currently stronger than truth.

Edit to correct Cone's first name.

(10-09-2019 02:58 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:32 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:36 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  For those of you that don't want to open links.

Quote:Washington Free Beacon: “Minutes of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a “2nd year” contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job. That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching. Minutes from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren’s resignation was ‘accepted with regret.'”

I knew she was full of schit on this claim from day one.

Why? Cause my own mother was pregnant in 1962, 1965-66 and again 68-69. She taught consistently for 42 yrs., only taking time off as was necessary and it was always voluntary, brief and she returned to her same position.

THIS additional lie was supposed to be '71, seriously doubt it.

My question is why and what is her apparent need to be some sort of victim or part of some particular protected class.

You're rich, white and a liberal. Why the constant need to try and be something you're not?


Oh, wait. N/M

Yep.....she has a powerful need to be a victim of something...anything!!!

What is it that drives libs to victimhood???

Honky guilt.

"shadonkey, I won't be yo' honkey."

I don't know if I can have more fun right now with my Cards up 13-0 in b4....

(10-09-2019 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You can trace it back to Roy Cone's "God of the Oppressed" which categorically states that the victim is free of sin and cannot sin when retaliating against his/her oppressor.

His name was James Cone.... Roy Cohn was somebody else.