Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Hilary dead
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostFine. She absolutely believed the family stories. Even after the New England Historic Genealogical Society looked into it and could find no evidence to support her claim.
But considering that she also plagiarized recipes she submitted for Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes while declaring that they were authentic Native American cuisine family recipes, it seems that she was more than naïve.
Likewise fabricating the story about how her parents were forced to elope because her mother was part Native American. And repeatedly claiming that she only started saying she was Native American while she was at Harvard.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
If true, they certainly push the edge of what can be excused. But perhaps best to focus on the persistent use of the story than be so critical of the fact such a story was ever told? The is no acknowledgement in this thread, or the warren threads for that matter, of the fact the stories likely have innocent origin but only become an issue when they are repeatedly told after having been corrected.
With Warren, it was fairly clear she absolutely believed the stories about her heritage until the DNA tests explicitly showed they were likely exaggerated over time (she does have Indian ancestry). I don't fault her on that account. DNA tests did not exist when she went to college, and I don't have any idea what evidence was required to prove what she had been told was true, but I do know that tribes have become increasingly skeptical of claims to indian heritage, requiring birth records and a minimum percentage inheritance (usually 1/16 - a full blooded great grandparent), specifically because of instance like Warren's where people were told they had Indian ancestry by parents and relatives and they believed and acted on it.
With Hil(l)ary, it's such a trivial thing I find it hard to get worked up over it, but as for concern over her persisting in telling the story - that would depend a bit on whether her mom told her that regardless of what people were saying, she named her after the mountaineer. Like has been said, it is possible her mom was aware of him before 1953. So if your mom says she did, and it was possible, would you toss it in her face and say she was lying?
This is the sort of thing I don't find indicative of poor character. Family stories are family stories. They tend to get changed over time, usually exaggerated in some positive way. We usually don't look too closely at them. Public figures - as we can see here - do need to be a bit careful about sharing them without checking them out - not because it's a big deal, but because their opponents will make it a big deal.
But considering that she also plagiarized recipes she submitted for Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes while declaring that they were authentic Native American cuisine family recipes, it seems that she was more than naïve.
Likewise fabricating the story about how her parents were forced to elope because her mother was part Native American. And repeatedly claiming that she only started saying she was Native American while she was at Harvard.
ETA: As for Hillary, it's the continuing with the claim after acknowledging it wasn't true. Not as bad as some of the stuff old Joe keeps claiming even after having admitted wasn't true, but still.
Honestly, I think you're surprised just how common it is for even prominent politicians to brazenly embellish their past -- and continue doing so long after admitting what they said wasn't true. One guy didn't start it in 2020 and was a rank amateur compared to some.Last edited by rogue06; 05-05-2021, 11:13 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
It didn't take long for me to see them, but I had to "unfocus" my eyes and let the refocus at a slower rate than normal to see them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
Interesting.
Remember those big paintings (or prints) you used to see at the mall, where you had to stand and stare at them for a long time before you saw the shark, or elephant, or whatever?
I often wondered why other people had such a difficult time seeing the image.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
Yeah, the pattern would stand out more since you're not processing the color information. The best comparison I can make it changing the graphical settings in a video games so you can see things more clearly. In fact some tournament players will intentionally turn the graphics settings down to the lowest possible for two reasons.
1. Things stand out more.
2. You get higher frames per second, which means they see things happen before those who have lower frames per second.
Remember those big paintings (or prints) you used to see at the mall, where you had to stand and stare at them for a long time before you saw the shark, or elephant, or whatever?
I often wondered why other people had such a difficult time seeing the image.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
Early Technicolor often looks off in a similar way to "colorized" black and white movies. In the latter I'm able to see a second layer to everything. It's almost like how your brain looks at a movie with those old red and blue 3D glasses. Early Technicolor has a similar look, but not quite as pronounced.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
Color is an interesting thing -- I read about the military in WWII recruiting colorblind people because they could look at camouflaged scenes and pictures and easily spot the 'hidden'.
And night vision - mine seems to be above normal.
1. Things stand out more.
2. You get higher frames per second, which means they see things happen before those who have lower frames per second.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
yeah - it's a process that hasn't reached 'invisibility' yet. Same with computer animation of dead people like in the recent Star Wars movies. Close - but no cigar - yet.
*I don't mean I have better vision. I have mild astigmatism combined with somewhat more myopia. I just seem to notice differences in colors, brightness, etc. that others don't.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostWell, it's the best analogy for what I see when I watch them. Most anyone else I know doesn't seem to notice it much, and usually only after I point it out. My senses tend to pick up things most people have no idea is even there. For me it is like I have a 100x multiplier on how intense anything might be. It is good for some things, and terrible for others. I'm surrounded by people who don't have that level of sensitivity, so they aren't able to even notice when they do or make something that is unpleasant for me to be around.
And night vision - mine seems to be above normal.Last edited by Cow Poke; 05-05-2021, 10:24 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
I'm not colorblind, but they look "off" to me too. Especially something like "It's a Wonderful Life".
Leave a comment:
-
With Warren, she persisted even after it was proven false, so she doesn't get a pass on "I really believed it was true".
She 'believed' it because she wanted to, it worked to her advantage, and she didn't have the moral character to admit she was wrong.
With Hillary, it's just another lie in a long pattern of lies.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
Interesting - makes sense.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe problem with Hillary and Warren was that they continue telling their tales even after they get debunked. That is where the problem lies.
And with Hillary, who was proclaimed "the smartest woman in America" when Bill was POTUS, you would think at some point basic math would have come into play.
And with Warren, aside from lying about never using her "minority status" to advance herself, she also plagiarized some recipes and passed them off as old family recipes reflecting her supposed Native American heritage.
Those are what changes family stories into deliberate lies.
With Warren, it was fairly clear she absolutely believed the stories about her heritage until the DNA tests explicitly showed they were likely exaggerated over time (she does have Indian ancestry). I don't fault her on that account. DNA tests did not exist when she went to college, and I don't have any idea what evidence was required to prove what she had been told was true, but I do know that tribes have become increasingly skeptical of claims to indian heritage, requiring birth records and a minimum percentage inheritance (usually 1/16 - a full blooded great grandparent), specifically because of instance like Warren's where people were told they had Indian ancestry by parents and relatives and they believed and acted on it.
With Hil(l)ary, it's such a trivial thing I find it hard to get worked up over it, but as for concern over her persisting in telling the story - that would depend a bit on whether her mom told her that regardless of what people were saying, she named her after the mountaineer. Like has been said, it is possible her mom was aware of him before 1953. So if your mom says she did, and it was possible, would you toss it in her face and say she was lying?
This is the sort of thing I don't find indicative of poor character. Family stories are family stories. They tend to get changed over time, usually exaggerated in some positive way. We usually don't look too closely at them. Public figures - as we can see here - do need to be a bit careful about sharing them without checking them out - not because it's a big deal, but because their opponents will make it a big deal.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostEarly Technicolor often looks off in a similar way to "colorized" black and white movies. In the latter I'm able to see a second layer to everything. It's almost like how your brain looks at a movie with those old red and blue 3D glasses. Early Technicolor has a similar look, but not quite as pronounced.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
162 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
379 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Leave a comment: