I agree. Your "entitled" definition is pure BS.
Spewing hatred is exactly what you're attempting.
A point about Elizabeth Warren's Native American Ancestry
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
I agree. Your "entitled" definition is pure BS.
Spewing hatred is exactly what you're attempting.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
I have news for you, there is no integrity or truth in politicians anymore either- especially for those who use slanderous language and insults towards others in their campaigns and positions of power.
I hate no one and think those posters who attack others are hypocrites who pretend they believe in love and tolerance.
That is not my definition of "entitled," it is your definition: "believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment."
Such a definition is based purely on attitudes impossible to measure--therefore, it becomes a term used to attack those you dislike. Even though you claim they are entitled you believe you are morally superior and better than they are.
Those who fall for the party's latest focus group buzzword are just looking for snarky things to say. Republicans yelling about Democratic "mobs" and Democrats yelling about "entitlement" are just blindly following the hate mongers.
Warren can fit the "entitled" category as much as Kavenaugh or Trump--one does not have to take that as a black/white term used to attack others. It is only taken as a negative term by those seeking to give negative o positive interpretations to all posts.
Are you the moron who thinks he can make up his own definitions? That dictionaries don’t count?
Not my definition, pally. The accepted definition. Whether you like it or not.
Dismissed, pally. You’re full of shit on this one. Look that up in the dictionary.
Are you the moron who thinks he can make up his own definitions? That dictionaries don’t count?
Not my definition, pally. The accepted definition. Whether you like it or not.
Dismissed, pally. You’re full of shit on this one. Look that up in the dictionary.
I didn't make up a definition. I used your (dictionary) definition which is "believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment."
The definition clearly says "believing oneself" which means you cannot measure what someone believes about himself and do not know whether he believes that or not.
That is the point--posters decide to attribute those beliefs to those they don't like and use it as an attack on those individuals.
However, those same self-righteous posters get very upset if someone attributes those same attitudes to someone like Elizabeth Warren whom they like and then give the stupid excuse that she can't be "entitled" because she did not come from a wealthy family which has nothing to do with the definition of the word. Their bigoted prejudice against someone born into a wealthy family is what is driving their hatred, not the person's beliefs about whether they are inherently deserving.
Actually if you read the full report the dna guy did not compsre to actual Cherokee dna but rather a variety of south and central american. And admitted he used some insider tips in putting it together.
No wonder she had to go to California with sample taken in Georgia to obtain a suitanle resiult.
Let's try again, pally. It's not MY definition. It's the accepted one. Want your own? Good write your own fucking dictionary. Until then, "entitled" means EXACTLY as I posted. And, while it apples to asswipes like Trump, it does not to a person like Warren, who has worked hard all her life to get where she is.
You attributed the word first, idiot. Or have you forgotten that?
You know what word comes just before 'shit' in the dictionary? Shineola. Look it up. Right now, you don't the difference between it and shit.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
is there anything really wrong about taking a moment out of our busy lives to just sit back and laugh at Elizabeth Warren?.......
Saying that she had NA blood got her into Harvard? Let's see some validation of that notion.
Wow you really are drinking the leftist kool aid.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/elizabeth-warren-native-american-heritage-harvard-fraud/
That's it? An opinion piece from some RWer with an agenda?
Here's his quote, moron.
"No one can know whether Warren would have landed at Harvard without faking her ethnicity...."
In the meantime, read up here, illiterate dumbfuck.
"Warren started her academic career as a lecturer at Rutgers University, Newark School of Law (1977–78). She moved to the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83), where she became Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in 1980, and obtained tenure in 1981. She taught at the University of Texas School of Law as visiting associate professo"r in 1981, and returned as a full professor two years later (staying 1983–87). In addition, she was a visiting professor at the University of Michigan (1985) and research associate at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin (1983–87). During this period Warren used to teach Sunday School. Early in her career, Warren became a proponent of on-the-ground research based on studying how people actually respond to laws in the real world. Her work analyzing court records, and interviewing judges, lawyers, and debtors, established her as a rising star in the field of bankruptcy law.
Warren joined the University of Pennsylvania Law School as a full professor in 1987 and obtained an endowed chair in 1990 (becoming William A Schnader Professor of Commercial Law). She taught for a year at Harvard Law School in 1992 as Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law. In 1995, Warren left Penn to become Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. As of 2011, she was the only tenured law professor at Harvard who had attended law school at an American public university. Warren was a highly influential law professor. Although she published in many fields, her expertise was in bankruptcy and commercial law. In that field, only Bob Scott of Columbia and Alan Schwartz of Yale were cited more often than Warren."
Loser
Your reading comprehension is poor. That is exactly what I said, that "I used your (dictionary) definition which is "believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment."
Nowhere did I challenge or argue with this definition. I merely pointed out that a person cannot know whether another person "believes" he is deserving. That means you have no idea whether Trump or Warren believe they are entitled. Whether Warren or anybody else worked hard is irrelevant to that belief. A person could be poor and never work but still believe they are entitled.
You keep missing the point that you are using that term to denigrate those you dislike and claim it does not apply to those you like--that has nothing to do with the definition of the word. Your application of the term has nothing to do with its definition.
You seem to be an very angry person. Resorting to insults usually occurs when a person runs out of anything substantive to say.
Oh how thick is the irony!
Perhaps you should refer to post #197, nitwit. You were the one who invoked the term, not me. I merely pointed out that you were full of shit.
Oh how thick is the irony!
Perhaps you should refer to post #197, nitwit. You were the one who invoked the term, not me. I merely pointed out that you were full of shit.
You are arguing points I never made. I never said I did not invoke the term--I was illustrating both Democrats and Republicans can equally be called "entitled" and there is no way to know whether a person holds those beliefs. People are just spreading hate by using it to attack those on the other side while claiming it does not apply to those on their side.
I do not dislike Elizabeth Warren, but you have no more evidence to say she is not entitled than you do anybody else. Because she "worked hard" does not mean she cannot feel entitled. And if she is that does not make her a bad person except for people who have the us (good) vs. them (bad) mentality and think failure to agree with every hateful lame attack on one side automatically put somebody on the other side.
I can see that, in the way that right-wingers feel that they are entitled to the presidency. The anger they instantly feel towards anyone who challenges that sense of entitlement -- even someone who works her way from the ground up in seeking that office the hard way.
What makes you imagine that? Be specific, please.
Me too. Trump's an excellent example. He thought he was entitled to the presidency by virtue of having been an entertainer. It never occurred to him that if he wanted to be a good president, he should work his way up to that job -- paying his dues in lower-level political positions so he can learn the ropes and better understand what's needed to serve the American people well. He felt entitled to start in an all-new field at the very top position.
In his case, that sense of entitlement likely came from a childhood of extreme privilege, where he was effectively handed the reins to a major business enterprise as a matter of birthright entitlement, rather than having to earn it through his own talents and hard work. Warren, obviously, is very different. She never acted like she thought she was entitled to start at the top, as president. She worked in the trenches for years in various obscure political roles as an adviser -- just as she'd previously worked her way up in academia. Only after paying her dues working behind the scenes did she think she knew the ropes well enough to run for major office, at which time she ran for the senate. And only after eight years in that position will she maybe regard herself as ready to step up and fill the top job. I can respect someone who pays her dues and works her way up like that. It's the very opposite of a sense of entitlement. It's about EARNING a position.
In what sense is Warren entitled? I'm still not clear on what you mean.
It is supposed to speak for itself. It is to illustrate how stupid it is to make those claims against any person since we do not really know their beliefs and we use it as hate speech to denigrate those we disagree with while claiming those we like do not have such beliefs. It is stupid partisan hatred.
And, I do not necessarily take that as a negative description of Warren. It is only negative in the say it is being used to attack people.