Re: Pocahontas takes DNA test
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:13 pm
I disagree. It speaks volumes to the character of someone who would knowingly make those claims.defixione wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:00 pmWe can claim anything we want to claim. The onus is on the University or any other organization that would accept a claim without proof.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:57 pmMeh. There has to be a threshold or standard. All of us are a little bit of just about everything, but that doesn’t mean we can claim minority status for hiring preference.
So, if I hire you to do a job for me and then refuse to pay you after the work is done, it is your fault for trusting me and I am without fault for lying to you?defixione wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:00 pmWe can claim anything we want to claim. The onus is on the University or any other organization that would accept a claim without proof.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:57 pmMeh. There has to be a threshold or standard. All of us are a little bit of just about everything, but that doesn’t mean we can claim minority status for hiring preference.
That's what contracts are for.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:45 pmSo, if I hire you to do a job for me and then refuse to pay you after the work is done, it is your fault for trusting me and I am without fault for lying to you?defixione wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:00 pmWe can claim anything we want to claim. The onus is on the University or any other organization that would accept a claim without proof.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:57 pm
Meh. There has to be a threshold or standard. All of us are a little bit of just about everything, but that doesn’t mean we can claim minority status for hiring preference.
Unfortunately, you can't prove a negative. Assassinating someone's character when you have absolutely no proof and then turning around and saying 'Well, you failed to prove that you didn't, so you're a bad person" is beyond ridiculous. Or at least it used to be before the Left lost their minds.
Still requires you to trust me. I can just refuse to honor the contract. Then it's your fault for accepting my claims of trustworthiness without proof. No blame for me!defixione wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:52 pmThat's what contracts are for.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:45 pmSo, if I hire you to do a job for me and then refuse to pay you after the work is done, it is your fault for trusting me and I am without fault for lying to you?
Sounds like Trump's defense in screwing thousands of contractors out of millions of dollars.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:45 pmSo, if I hire you to do a job for me and then refuse to pay you after the work is done, it is your fault for trusting me and I am without fault for lying to you?defixione wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:00 pmWe can claim anything we want to claim. The onus is on the University or any other organization that would accept a claim without proof.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:57 pm
Meh. There has to be a threshold or standard. All of us are a little bit of just about everything, but that doesn’t mean we can claim minority status for hiring preference.
I don't care about blame. My lawyer would make sure I was remunerated once my claim that you had broken the contract was proven.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:05 pmStill requires you to trust me. I can just refuse to honor the contract. Then it's your fault for accepting my claims of trustworthiness without proof. No blame for me!defixione wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:52 pmThat's what contracts are for.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 2:45 pm
So, if I hire you to do a job for me and then refuse to pay you after the work is done, it is your fault for trusting me and I am without fault for lying to you?
We don't know. It was a limited investigation of her claims.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:04 pmUnfortunately, you can't prove a negative. Assassinating someone's character when you have absolutely no proof and then turning around and saying 'Well, you failed to prove that you didn't, so you're a bad person" is beyond ridiculous. Or at least it used to be before the Left lost their minds.
She is a disgraceful liar who used fake claims of Native American heritage to get a coveted Harvard faculty post over other more qualified people. Anything Trump said or says is secondary to that fact.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:24 pm Are seriously still trying to figure out a way to word it in such a manner that Trump doesn't look like an annoying dipshit who spewed foul venom all over Warren just because he felt like knocking her down a few pegs? I thought you were in pursuit of "honest conbersation"?
Seriously? The FBI isn't good enough for you?defixione wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:17 pmWe don't know. It was a limited investigation of her claims.HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:04 pmUnfortunately, you can't prove a negative. Assassinating someone's character when you have absolutely no proof and then turning around and saying 'Well, you failed to prove that you didn't, so you're a bad person" is beyond ridiculous. Or at least it used to be before the Left lost their minds.
The difference is, there were credible witnesses against Dowdy the Clown, who is one of the most evil people ever to walk the earth, while there were zero against Kavanaugh. The math is pretty simple if you just think about it.
Heck, all three of my kids are, like, 1/32 Cherokee, and they can't even get any of the government freebies out there. 1/1023 is waaaay less than that, and she got a Harvard professorship.IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:04 pm Warren continues to make herself look so stupid by standing by this mistake she made. Several Indian leaders have spoken out against her already, again.