Did Elizabeth Warren plagiarize her recipes in “Pow Wow Chow”?

[Agorism]

Saw this on Hotair..apparently her Pow Wow Show is based on someone else's recipe.


breitbart-fake Indian in real trouble? (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/18/did-elizabeth-warren-plagiarize-pow-wow-chow-recipes)

http://frugalfurbabies.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/purinapuppy.jpg


Two of the possibly plagiarized recipes, said in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook to have been passed down through generations of Oklahoma Native American members of the Cherokee tribe, are described in a New York Times News Service story as originating at Le Pavilion, a fabulously expensive French restaurant in Manhattan. The dishes were said to be particular favorites of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Cole Porter.

The two recipes, “Cold Omelets with Crab Meat” and “Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing,” appear in an article titled “Cold Omelets with Crab Meat,” written by Pierre Franey of the New York Times News Service that was published in the August 22, 1979 edition of the Virgin Islands Daily News, a copy of which can be seen here.

Ms. Warren’s 1984 recipe for Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing is a word-for-word copy of Mr. Franey’s 1979 recipe.

Mrs. Warren’s 1984 recipe for Cold Omelets with Crab Meat contains all four of the ingredients listed in Mr. Franey’s 1979 recipe in the exact same portion but lists five additional ingredients. More significantly, her instructions are virtually a word for word copy of Mr. Franey’s instructions from this 1979 article.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnNyUm53Hlc&feature=youtu.be




Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes says it’s time for Elizabeth Warren to come clean


You see, Ms. Warren, some of us have independently done our own research and we know you have no documentation supporting your claim of Cherokee ancestry.* We wonder why you believe you have the right to claim Cherokee ancestry and to call yourself a Native American when you have no evidence to support your claim. While you cling to a family story and the inaccurate report that ONE document was found that supports your claim, we real Cherokees understand that those things mean nothing. You see, we Cherokees have lots and lots and lots of documentation supporting our claims of our ancestry. Our Cherokee ancestors are found on every roll of the Cherokee Nation (30+ rolls!) dating back to before the removal and in all sorts of other documentation, including but not limited to claims against the US government for lost property; the Moravian missionary records; ration lists before and after the forced removal, etc…yet your ancestors are found in NONE of those records…

Of course, you say you only “checked the box” in an attempt to meet others like you, but that doesn’t make sense. If one is claiming to be Cherokee and wants to meet other Cherokees, they don’t “check a box” on a job application or in a directory for their profession! They go to where Cherokees are…

*Note – Several people who are experienced researchers in Cherokee genealogy have been working together exploring Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry. They have uncovered many documents that, combined, paint a very clear picture that Warren descends from white people who had no connection whatsoever to the Cherokee Nation. These documents will be posted soon.



Larry Sabato says “It’s glued to her now. This is going to be with her throughout the campaign… I don’t know how it goes away when you have so many unanswered questions.”

[thoughtomator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

If only she would have retired after this, she would have been remembered as a heroine.

[kathy88]

I just read somewhere that not only is there not one drop of Cherokee blood in her, but her great great whatever father actually was an active participant in the trail of tears and driving the natives OUT.

[Agorism]

oops wrong section apparently

[MelissaCato]

I wonder what the real reason is tryin to rousen up the natives. This is a non issue to everyone except the us government, and now she's a plagiarizer for recipes .. LOL

[speciallyblend]

hmmm just seems very trivial issue to me, but i guess she might of copied a recipe? just curious i have a secret family recipe for peanut butter and jelly, 1/ 2.1 slices/bread(just in case some one has patented 2 slices of bread for a sandwich),2/ peanut butter 3/ jelly, my secret is you put the peanut butter on the outside and the jelly on the other side and the bread inside:) This way after every bite you can lick your fingers with the excess, yum yum . I now have this sandwich patented and covered. Better not claim your indian or come close to my recipe or i will sue! it all seems very trivial to me. Seems claiming to be indian should be a bigger issue. A recipe seems close to someone else's? There is only so much you can do with certain foods. next top secret recipe i am working on buttered toast.

[Agorism]

I think it's a legitimate issue.

She is still claiming she is a Native American too...

[LimitedGovernment]

I think it's a legitimate issue.

She is still claiming she is a Native American too...

Translation: "I hate Elizabeth Warren for undisclosed reasons! I'll attack her on anything that I can - all information be damned!"

Agorism has only provided one reason for attacking Warren. I've debunked all of the claims about Elizabeth Warren to date in threads that Agorism has started - aside from her blood relationship to a Cherokee ancestor and this new stuff about recipes.

This is Agorism's reaction:


Yep, she supports liberal justices and liberal policies to help herself cheat the system.


Wow. You negative repped me with the note "She's a communist".

Really?

Really?



Edit:

And let me make it clear: If it turns out that Elizabeth Warren purposely and knowingly deceived people in official documents, I'll be the first to point to the issue. At this point, everything is just speculation, slander, and libel because there isn't a preponderance of evidence to support the claim. The best arguments for the claim are tenuous.

[fletcher]

There is nobody in this country who created a recipe on their own. Nobody. You got a recipe published in a newspaper - good for you. But I want to be clear. The food and cookware you used were moved to market on roads the rest of us paid for. We paid for you to learn to write. You were safe in your kitchen because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your kitchen... Now look. You wrote a recipe and it turned into something terrific - God bless! But part of the underlying social contract is that recipe belongs to me, too.” -Elizabeth Warren

[LimitedGovernment]

There is nobody in this country who created a recipe on their own. Nobody. You got a recipe published in a newspaper - good for you. But I want to be clear. The food and cookware you used were moved to market on roads the rest of us paid for. We paid for you to learn to write. You were safe in your kitchen because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your kitchen... Now look. You wrote a recipe and it turned into something terrific - God bless! But part of the underlying social contract is that recipe belongs to me, too.” -Elizabeth Warren

Ok, I laughed a bit. Well done.


The thing is that Elizabeth Warren is right about private groups using public resources. That's why I support the idea of taxes on any group that uses said resources.

However, the tax should be in proportion to the use of those resources. I separately also support the idea of some of the founding fathers' that the amount of wealth that people spend on luxury should have a proportional tax.

I don't believe that we should have a broad property tax, income tax, or sales tax.

[Agorism]

You haven't debunked anything.

We think she's a fraudster, and she is still claiming to be an Indian even though everyone knows she isn't.

Boston Herald condemns Elizabeth Warren for illegitimate expropriation of Native American suffering for personal gain. (http://bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1061132648)


She might have gotten away with not having any documentation to back up the identity she claimed, if only she’d exhibited some contrition, but what’s making Elizabeth Warren a pariah, even among liberal sympathizers, is that she still doesn’t have a clue of how egregiously exploitative she appears to be.

That brazen sense of entitlement, so unattractive, apparently makes humility impossible, even if it’s feigned for the purpose of public relations. …

Native Americans were massacred, plundered, displaced and herded onto reservations where misery, depravation [sic] and despair darkened a barren existence. They were described as “merciless savages” when our Declaration of Independence was authored, and well into the 1950s they were still portrayed as barbarians by Hollywood directors and TV cowboys.

Not unlike slavery, it’s a part of our past that now haunts America’s conscience. To Elizabeth Warren, however, it offered great political camouflage, a dramatic touch to her resume, as she claimed to be a descendant of those who suffered mercilessly, as if she was somehow deserving of our sympathies, too.

Please. What she deserves is our contempt.

[speciallyblend]

I think it's a legitimate issue.

She is still claiming she is a Native American too...

that might be wrong but is it illegal? I would guess it is illegal only if your claiming indian gov benefits. pulling out a recipe to use that against her. I am sorry that is laughable about the recipe. It doesn't add anything to the story other then some laughs. So she might be a fraud. Has she done something flat out illegal?? other then a suppose copy of a recipe? seems like grasping for straws.

ps side note , my wife is pueblo indian/hispanic/white so i have alot of sympathy for the indian nation. A major reason why i support Ron Paul!

[LibertyEagle]

More crap from the liberal media trying to make us have contempt for our founders and this is the same crap that is taught to our children. We are much more easily conquered if we have no confidence in our founders or our Constitution and that is why they do it.

In my opinion, what our government did that was horrible was refusing to abide by their own treaties with the Indians. But, to neglect to say that some Indian tribes WERE savage, is a complete and utter lie. The Indian tribes knew it too.

As horrible as it may seem, land is fought over. Most Indians did not settle it, so early settlers did. Early Americans were not the first to settle land and we will not be the last.

Many of us today have Indian blood in us. I am one of them.

I am sick to death of the blame game.

[LimitedGovernment]

You haven't debunked anything.

We think she's a fraudster, and she is still claiming to be an Indian even though everyone knows she isn't.

And who is "we"?


I'm just going to re-post a quote from one of my many reponses to you, and then quote my key comments on the subject.

"You know, I've already dealt with the issues involved with [Elizabeth Warren] directly with you in another thread, so I get you starting a new one to divert attention."



This isn't right. There is no factual basis for stating that she isn't of heritage, and her personal history demonstrates that she believes she has it. I have a friend who some say doesn't look NA, but who is and who gets college expenses paid for by authorities in Canada.


I'm really disappointed by a lot of you.

Elizabeth has been fighting Wall Street corruption in more serious ways than practically any member of government while not even holding office.

Moreover, her 1/32 ancestry is the same as some current tribal chiefs, it's well understood that she didn't get special benefits for her listing, she's spoken candidly about the subject of her history, and she's been more genuine and accountable than the majority of people running for office. She doesn't pander and she doesn't want the race to be about side issues. She wants her candidacy to be about policy and her interest in protecting people from things like fine print legalese.

She may be ignorant about some subjects, but you were once, as well. Other than that, she looks like a Democratic Ron Paul.


I don't know who the guy you mentioned is. I do know Elizabeth Warren and her history.

The video you embedded has clips of her talking about her family members' cultural ties to Native American ancestry. There are many in the NA community who emphasize culture over blood. That makes her more, not less, worthy of making the claim and - once again - backs up her candid comments about listing herself to find others with an NA family background.

If anyone's at fault here, it's Harvard for not getting a fully tenured NA professor for their NA Law courses, and Republican talk show hosts who are lying, smearing her, and using racially-charged slams like "Pinnochio-hontas" and "Sacaja-whiner".

I mean, seriously, if the argument is that she's not "NA enough", then the idea of using racial slams shouldn't cross their minds.

Moreover, the WSJ did an interview in which some guy was eagerly talking about how Irish voters may go after her for being a "minority taking advantage of the system".

I mean, come on.


If we're going to look at the hiring decision, we need to look at the actual CVs that were up for the job. Candidates from "low ranked" universities can do better work.

However, you are right that minority status plays a role in hiring - it has to by federal law. That, again, doesn't mean that the candidate is at fault if a bad hiring decision is made. It means that the selection committee is.

Might she have emphasized her NA family members' background during her campus tour interview? Perhaps. That doesn't mean she should be smeared, or that the election shouldn't be about what she'll take action on in congress.


Whatever the case, the election should be about her policies and record. Wall Street is clearly out to get her because she's aggressive on preventing corrupt practices from proliferating - much less staying on the policy books.

This is like the Ron Paul newsletters thing - it distracts from what matters most.



You know, I've already dealt with the issues involved with this directly with you in another thread, so I get you starting a new one to divert attention.

What I don't get is why this even matters so much to you. I mean, why Elizabeth Warren, of all people you could target? What is it about her that makes you see her as worse than others and more deserving of an attack that has nothing to do with her policies? An attack, that by reasonable analysis, seems to be more on the institution she was hired by?

All of this, keeping in mind that her causes have been eliminating things like deceptive and complex "small print" legalese and making bankruptcy proceedings easier for middle-class families.

Warren's Newsweek quote on the bailouts was "To restore some basic sanity to the financial system, we need two central changes: fix broken consumer-credit markets and end guarantees for the big players that threaten our entire economic system."

The reason she didn't end up the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is that the financial institutions, some Republicans in congress, and Timothy Geithner were against her. I don't see why that doesn't sound good to you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz7ruJw6byQ


And everyone else who is in favor of public schools is a socialist. Still not a reason to attack her for something that is not her fault (Harvard's promotion of her).

[LimitedGovernment]

More crap from the liberal media trying to make us have contempt for our founders and this is the same crap that is taught to our children. We are much more easily conquered if we have no confidence in our founders or our Constitution and that is why they do it.

In my opinion, what our government did that was horrible was refusing to abide by their own treaties with the Indians. But, to neglect to say that some Indian tribes WERE savage, is a complete and utter lie. The Indian tribes knew it too.

As horrible as it may seem, land is fought over. Most Indians did not settle it, so early settlers did. Early Americans were not the first to settle land and we will not be the last.

Many of us today have Indian blood in us. I am one of them.

I am sick to death of the blame game.

"Liberal media"? The Herald is owned by a former News Corp exec who was sold the property when News Corp had to sell it in order to buy a TV affiliate.

[LibertyEagle]

"Liberal media"? The Herald is owned by a former News Corp exec who was sold the property when News Corp had to sell it in order to buy a TV affiliate.

So?

[specsaregood]

Two of the possibly plagiarized recipes, said in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook to have been passed down through generations of Oklahoma Native American members of the Cherokee tribe, are described in a New York Times News Service story as originating at Le Pavilion, a fabulously expensive French restaurant in Manhattan. The dishes were said to be particular favorites of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Cole Porter.

The two recipes, “Cold Omelets with Crab Meat” and “Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing,” appear in an article titled “Cold Omelets with Crab Meat,” written by Pierre Franey of the New York Times News Service that was published in the August 22, 1979 edition of the Virgin Islands Daily News, a copy of which can be seen here.


So the claim is that indians in Oklahoma have really old recipes for crab? Really? They get a lot of crabmeat in Oklahoma? Especially "generations" ago? I was not aware of that.

[speciallyblend]

More crap from the liberal media trying to make us have contempt for our founders and this is the same crap that is taught to our children. We are much more easily conquered if we have no confidence in our founders or our Constitution and that is why they do it.

In my opinion, what our government did that was horrible was refusing to abide by their own treaties with the Indians. But, to neglect to say that some Indian tribes WERE savage, is a complete and utter lie. The Indian tribes knew it too.

As horrible as it may seem, land is fought over. Most Indians did not settle it, so early settlers did. Early Americans were not the first to settle land and we will not be the last.

Many of us today have Indian blood in us. I am one of them.

I am sick to death of the blame game.

great points. curious may i ask what tribe your blood line is from?

[LimitedGovernment]

So?

So it slants to the right, not the left - both in funding and in content.

[speciallyblend]

So the claim is that indians in Oklahoma have really old recipes for crab? Really? They get a lot of crabmeat in Oklahoma? Especially "generations" ago? I was not aware of that.

i know that made me laugh as well. maybe they had a better trade route then we knew:)

[LibertyEagle]

great points. curious may i ask what tribe your blood line is from?

I am a mutt, but mostly Osage and Omaha.

[specsaregood]

I am a mutt, but mostly Osage and Omaha.

You are an okie too arent ya? Any sources of crab in OK I'm not aware of?

[LibertyEagle]

So it slants to the right, not the left - both in funding and in content.

NewsCorp is not "right". That is what you don't seem to understand. They advocate more government, more spending, more war and attack civil liberties just as much as their leftist brethren on the other side of the aisle.

If you are looking for what used to be considered "the right" (ie. limited Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense (not offense), personal privacy, personal responsibility, and individual liberty), we are right here in this campaign. We are the remnant; the Old Guard.

[LibertyEagle]

//

[LibertyEagle]

You are an okie too arent ya? Any sources of crab in OK I'm not aware of?

I don't live there now, but I was born and raised in Oklahoma. As far as crab goes, nope, not of which I am aware. lol

[LimitedGovernment]

NewsCorp is not "right". That is what you don't seem to understand. They advocate more government, more spending, more war and attack civil liberties just as much as their leftist brethren on the other side of the aisle.

If you are looking for what used to be considered "the right" (ie. limited Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense (not offense), personal privacy, personal responsibility, and individual liberty), we are right here in this campaign. We are the remnant; the Old Guard.

If you want to use honest meanings, then "liberal media" wouldn't be the correct terminology, either.

[heavenlyboy34]

NewsCorp is not "right". That is what you don't seem to understand. They advocate more government, more spending, more war and attack civil liberties just as much as their leftist brethren on the other side of the aisle.

If you are looking for what used to be considered "the right" (ie. limited Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense (not offense), personal privacy, personal responsibility, and individual liberty), we are right here in this campaign. We are the remnant; the Old Guard.

This is not exactly an accurate portrayal of the Old Right. (Sorry I can't find an audio recording of this on Mises Media, so I only have a wall of text)
The Myth of the "Old Right" (http://mises.org/daily/3848)
In 1932, according to John T. Flynn, there were no federal "subsidies to farmers, … handouts to the indigent, [or] support [for] schools." The federal government did not "build hospitals [or] provide medical care."[1] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note1) And though it did undertake national defense, it did so much more cheaply than Americans of today are accustomed to seeing."The U.S. had the sixteenth largest army in the world" in 1932, William Manchester reports, "putting it behind, among others, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Spain, Romania, and Poland." And most of those in uniform "were committed to desk work, patrolling the Mexican border, and protecting U.S. possessions overseas." What remained to defend the United States from anyone other than Mexico was "30,000 troops — fewer than the force King George sent to tame his rebellious American colonies in 1776."[2] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note2)In constant dollars, this army cost about 0.0125 percent of what today's military costs the US taxpayer. In 1932, the federal government was seizing less than 5 percent of our national income, so it had to be a good deal more frugal than the federal government of 2005, which claims a fraction more than five times that much.The Great Depression was underway in 1932, of course — it had been for three and a half years. Around a quarter of the workforce was out of work, banks were failing, times were hard. And President Hoover had only made matters worse. Flynn saw the "Hoover New Deal" as an effort to virtually nationalize the US economy, an effort "to organize every profession, every trade, every craft under [government] supervision and to deal directly with such details as the volume of production, the prices, the means and methods of distribution of every conceivable product."[3] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note3)Fortunately, however, from the liberal point of view, President Hoover had been voted out of office after a single term in the White House. The American electorate had repudiated his approach to fighting the depression and had elected the Democratic candidate, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a man who stood for small government and fiscal responsibility.This was evident from the platform on which Roosevelt had run — a platform that called for


An immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus and eliminating extravagance, to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 percent in the cost of Federal government.…
Maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced .…
A sound currency to be maintained at all hazards.[4] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note4)



Nor was this platform meant to be taken as mere empty rhetoric of the sort people today tend to assume is characteristic of virtually all public statements by politicians. No. As Garet Garrett of theSaturday Evening Post pointed out in 1938, "Mr. Roosevelt pledged himself to be bound by this platform as no president had ever before been bound by a party document. All during the campaign he supported it with words that could not possibly be misunderstood." He said, for example,


I accuse the present Administration of being the greatest spending Administration in peace time in all American history — one which piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs or reduced earning power of the people. Bureaus and bureaucrats have been retained at the expense of the taxpayer.… We are spending altogether too much money for government services which are neither practical nor necessary. In addition to this, we are attempting too many functions and we need a simplification of what the Federal government is giving to the people.[5] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note5)




Roosevelt was particularly adamant on the subject of government borrowing.


Toward the end of the campaign he cried: "Stop the deficits! Stop the deficits!" Then to impress his listeners with his inflexible purpose to deal with this prodigal monster, he said: "Before any man enters my cabinet he must give me a twofold pledge: Absolute loyalty to the Democratic platform and especially to its economy plank. And complete cooperation with me in looking to economy and reorganization in his department."[6] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note6)




True, Roosevelt's political track record was somewhat worrisome, for "as governor he took New York State from the hands of Al Smith with a surplus of $15,000,000 and left it with a deficit of $90,000,000." Still, "there was nothing revolutionary in" what he was now telling the voters.


It was … actually an old-time Democratic platform based upon fairly well-accepted principles of the traditional Democratic party. That party had always denounced the tendency to strong central government, the creation of new bureaus. It had always denounced deficit financing. Its central principle of action was a minimum of government in business.[7] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note7)




By contrast, since the time of Lincoln, the Republican party had always stood for strong central government, top-heavy bureaucracy, and hefty handouts to big business. The fact that the voters had evicted a Republican from the White House and elected a Democrat surely meant that American public opinion was leaning in a more liberal direction.

"In 1932, the federal government was seizing less than 5 percent of our national income, so it had to be a good deal more frugal than the federal government of 2005, which claims a fraction more than five times that much."

But of course Franklin Roosevelt dashed all such liberal hopes within the first hundred days of his administration. In effect, once elected, he tossed the Democratic platform of 1932 into the trashcan and proceeded to show the electorate that he could play the conservative game better than any Republican. First he took Hoover's Hamiltonian policies and enormously expanded them; then, astonishingly, he had the effrontery to describe himself and his stolen program as "liberal."John T. Flynn, a journalist and commentator and a noted liberal spokesman since the 1920s, wrote in 1940 that "I see the standard of liberalism that I have followed all my life flying over a group of causes which, as a liberal along with all liberals, I have abhorred all my life."[8] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note8) Nor was Flynn alone in this feeling.A number of prominent liberals, many of them writers and intellectuals, had enthusiastically supported FDR in the 1932 election, believing that he meant to adhere to the classically liberal Democratic party platform for that year. In addition to Flynn, these included H. L. Mencken, editor of the American Mercury; Isabel Paterson, iconoclastic editor and columnist at the New York Herald Tribune Sunday "Books" section; and Garet Garrett, chief editorialist at the Saturday Evening Post.They were joined in their bitter opposition to the Roosevelt New Deal by other writers and intellectuals who, irrespective of the candidate they had supported in the 1932 election, were also old-fashioned liberals appalled by what FDR was doing under the once-good liberal name. These included Albert Jay Nock, former editor of the Freeman and regular contributor to the American Mercury, the Atlantic Monthly, and Harper's; Rose Wilder Lane, prolific freelance journalist and author; Henry Hazlitt, Mencken's successor as editor of the American Mercury and later writer on economic issues for The New York Times and Newsweek; and Felix Morley, editor of the Washington Post from 1933 to 1940 and winner of a Pulitzer Prize for distinguished editorial writing.Certain students of American intellectual history — Murray Rothbard is among them, unfortunately — have dubbed this group of writers and intellectuals, along with the handful of politicians who adopted a similar hostility toward New Deal domestic and/or foreign policy during the 1930s and early '40s, the "Old Right." "The Old Right," declares Internet pundit Justin Raimondo in his 1993 bookReclaiming the American Right, "was that loose grouping of intellectuals, writers, publicists, and politicians who vocally opposed the New Deal and bitterly resisted US entry into World War II."[9] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note9)"The 'Old Right' was born," writes Jude Blanchette of the Foundation for Economic Education,


in protest to Roosevelt and the New Deal. Its leaders were H.L. Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, John T. Flynn, Suzanne La Follette and Felix Morley. It is notable that what one finds in their writings one can still find in the work of most libertarians today. In fact, it could be argued that the modern libertarian movement has more in common with conservatives of the 30s and 40s than do contemporary conservatives. The ideas of the Old Right conservatives (skepticism of government planning, isolationist foreign policy and a general belief in the free market) have taken a back seat to the modern conservative emphasis on domestic pragmatism and international interventionism.[10] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note10)




"The intellectual leaders of this old Right of World War II and the immediate aftermath," Rothbard wrote in 1964,


were then and remain today almost unknown among the larger body of American intellectuals: Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett. It almost takes a great effort of the will torecall the principles and Objectives of the old Right, so different is the current Right-wing today. The stress, as we have noted, was on individual liberty in all its aspects as against state power: on freedom of speech and action, on economic liberty, on voluntary relations as opposed to coercion, on a peaceful foreign policy. The great threat to that liberty was state power, in its invasion of personal freedom and private property and in its burgeoning military despotism. Philosophically, the major emphasis was on the natural rights of man, arrived at by an investigation through reason of the laws of man's nature. Historically, the intellectual heroes of the old Right were such libertarians as John Locke, the Levellers, Jefferson, Paine, Thoreau, Cobden, Spencer, and Bastiat.




"In short," Rothbard wrote, "this libertarian Right based itself on eighteenth and nineteenth century liberalism, and began systematically to extend that doctrine even further."[11] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note11)But if they were extending the doctrine of liberalism even further, they must have been liberals, right? They must have been men and women of the Left, not the Right — right? John Moser reports of John T. Flynn that "to the end of his life he never referred to himself as anything but a liberal.… Flynn claimed that it was the American political climate that changed during his lifetime, not he. Indeed, he believed that the very term liberal had been hijacked."[12] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note12)

"The very term liberal had been hijacked."

Flynn was correct. The writers and intellectuals who made up the most visible contingent of the "Old Right" were in no meaningful sense on the Right at all. They were on the Left, where they had always been. They were liberals. The termliberal had in fact been hijacked. The "two-party system" in the United States now consisted of two conservative parties and no liberal party.A great many of the liberals who had been left in the lurch by the Democratic party's sudden, more or less official adoption of conservatism in liberal clothing made the mistake of joining (or, at any rate, supporting) the Republican party — presumably in the belief that the opposition party, whatever its fundamental character, was where they now belonged.As Rothbard acknowledges, the "Old Right" was a coalition, in which the libertarians and individualists — the true liberals — were not dominant. Nevertheless, he writes, they


set the tone, since individualist and libertarian rhetoric provided the only general concepts with which New Deal measures could be opposed. The result, however, was that hack Republican politicians found themselves mouthing libertarian and antistatist slogans that they did not really believe — a condition that set the stage for a later "moderation" and abandonment of their seemingly cherished principles.[13] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note13)




More important, a great many of the liberals who had been driven into the GOP, though "at first properly scornful of their newfound allies, soon began to accept them and even to don cheerfully the formerly despised label of 'conservative.'"[14] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note14)And so it was that


the Libertarians, especially in their sense of where they stood in the ideological spectrum, fused with the older conservatives who were forced to adopt libertarian phraseology (but with no real libertarian content) in opposing a Roosevelt Administration that had become too collectivistic for them, either in content or in rhetoric. World War II reinforced and cemented this alliance; for, in contrast to all the previous American wars of the century, the pro-peace and "isolationist" forces were all identified, by their enemies and subsequently by themselves, as men of the "Right." By the end of World War II, it was second nature for libertarians to consider themselves at an "extreme right-wing" pole with the conservatives immediately to the left of them; and hence the great error of the spectrum that persists to this day. In particular, the modern libertarians forgot or never realized that opposition to war and militarism had always been a "left-wing" tradition which had included libertarians; and hence when the historical aberration of the New Deal period corrected itself and the "Right-wing" was once again the great partisan of total war, the Libertarians were unprepared to understand what was happening and tailed along in the wake of their supposed conservative "allies." The liberals had completely lost their old ideological markings and guidelines.[15] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note15)




The irony of all this was that the New Deal, the program of the fraudulent "liberals" of the Roosevelt administration, was, at heart, a profoundly conservative program. "Almost everything done during the Hundred Days," Robert Higgs reminds us, "relied on the emergency rationale and the wartime analogy. Many programs employed during World War I were resurrected."Moreover, "the administrators of the programs came largely from the ranks of the veterans of the wartime mobilization. The rhetoric and the symbols harkened back to that glorious occasion of extraordinary national solidarity."[16] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note16) In effect, then, the First New Deal, as FDR's program during 1933 and 1934 is generally called, was merely a rebirth of the policies of Woodrow Wilson — policies which were virtually indistinguishable from the Hamiltonian conservatism of Theodore Roosevelt.

"The 'two-party system' in the United States now consisted of two conservative parties and no liberal party."

It is sometimes asserted that the so-called Second New Deal, the package of policies FDR pushed during the period from 1935 to 1938, shifted the federal government's emphasis away from legislation aimed at "cartelization and other suppressions of market competition" to benefit big business and big labor and toward legislation aimed at "helping the underdogs and building the welfare state." It is further asserted that such welfare-state legislation was opposed by the big-business interests that most benefited from conservative policymaking.But this view of what happened in the mid to late 1930s is unduly simplistic. Much of the legislation supposedly designed during the Second New Deal to help "underdogs," like the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, was anticipated by one of the First New Deal's key creations, the National Recovery Administration (NRA), launched in June of 1933. As Higgs notes, the "minimum wages, maximum hours, and working conditions" stipulated by the Fair Labor Standards Act were "much like those required under the NRA's codes of fair competition." On the whole, laws like the Second New Deal's Fair Labor Standards Act should properly be regarded as the "progeny" or "spawn" of the earlier NRA.[17] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note17)Moreover, the minimum wage, maximum hour, and working conditions provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), the enabling legislation that created the NRA, were neither intended to benefit the downtrodden, nor imposed on big businessmen against their will. As Ronald Radosh argued, back when he was a New Left Historian, the provisions in question were actually intended to benefit the big businessmen, who could use them to increase costs for their smaller competitors. In the minds of these big businessmen, their smaller competitors were competing "unfairly by cutting costs through wage reductions."[18] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note18)Radosh approvingly quotes John T. Flynn's 1934 remark that, when it came to the NRA, "industry wanted not freedom from regulation, but the right to enjoy regulation." And in fact, as Arthur Ekirch points out, "it was industry itself that had largely prepared the regulations governing prices and production" enforced by the NRA.[19] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note19)Taken as a whole, Radosh maintains, "the New Deal was conservative. Its special form of conservatism was the development of reforms that modernized corporate capitalism and brought corporate law to reflect the system's changed nature."[20] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note20) Or, as Rothbard puts it,


After a bit of leftish wavering in the middle of the late thirties, the Roosevelt Administration recemented its alliance with big business in the national defense and war contract economy that began in 1940. This was an economy and a polity that has been ruling America ever since, embodied in the permanent war economy, the full-fledged State monopoly capitalism and neo-mercantilism, the military-industrial complex of the present era. The essential features of American society have not changed since it was thoroughly militarized and politicized in World War II — except that the trends intensify, and even in everyday life men have been increasingly moulded into conforming organization menserving the State and its military-industrial complex.[21] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note21)




The libertarian historian Leonard Liggio takes a similar position, arguing that


the pre-war New Deal benefited big business through government privileges and concentration of economic power as much as had Hoover's policies, of which the New Deal was basically a continuation. However, the most significant result of the war economy was the increased concentration of economic power which big business derived from government contracts, and the establishment of a close relationship between big business and the military .…[22] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note22)




The New Deal was, as John T. Flynn insisted while it was happening, "a form of conservatism dressed up as liberalism."[23] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note23) The "liberals" who pushed it were actually conservatives. And the members of the "Old Right" who opposed it were actually liberals. In his brief history of "the 'Old Right' Jeffersonians," Sheldon Richman acknowledges this. "That the movement was placed on the right or called 'conservative' has to be regarded a quirk of political semantics," he writes.


In a superficial sense it qualified as right-wing because it seemed to be defending the status quo from the state-sponsored egalitarian change of the New Deal. But in a deeper sense, the New Deal actually was a defense of the corporativist status quo threatened by the Great Depression. Thus the Old Right was not truly right-wing, and since that is so, it should not be bothersome that some palpable left-wingers, such as Norman Thomas and Robert La Follette, Jr., seemed at home in the Old Right.[24] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note24)




Nor was the opposition to the New Deal primarily a Republican phenomenon. Rothbard notes that Democratic politicians like Representative Samuel Pettingill of Indiana, "Governor Albert Ritchie of Maryland, who was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1932, and Senator James A. Reed from Missouri" were prominent in the movement against the New Deal.[25] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note25)Ronald Radosh adds the names of Senators "Burton K. Wheeler (D. Mont.) … and Hugo Black (D. Ala.)."[26] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note26) Sheldon Richman suggests "Senators Carter Glass of Virginia, Thomas P. Gore of Oklahoma, and Harry Byrd of Virginia," as well as such "Cleveland Democrats" as "Bennett Champ Clark of Missouri, Patrick McCarran of Nevada, and David I. Walsh of Massachusetts."[27] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note27)In fact, it was members of the Democratic party, not the Republican party, who mounted the first organized offensive against the New Deal, which they regarded as a betrayal of the liberal principles that had long served as their party's ideological foundation. The first national organization opposed to the New Deal, the American Liberty League, was founded in 1934 by a group of prominent Democrats.There was Jouett Shouse, former Democratic congressman from Kansas, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Wilson administration, former chairman of the Democratic National Executive Committee, and former president of the predominantly Democratic Association Against the Prohibition Amendment. There was John J. Raskob, former Democratic National Committee chairman and executive of the Du Pont company and General Motors. There was John W. Davis, the 1924 Democratic presidential candidate and a J.P. Morgan & Company attorney. And there was Al Smith, former governor of New York and 1928 Democratic presidential candidate. Sheldon Richman reports that "Raskob, a good friend and fellow Catholic of Al Smith, did the bulk of the early organizing and thinking about the League."[28] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note28)$15$12 (http://mises.org/store/Why-American-History-is-Not-What-They-Say-P584.aspx?utm_source=Mises_Daily&utm_medium=Product_Price_Link&utm_campaign=Item_in_Daily)



There were serious opponents of the New Deal in the GOP, too, of course. But, despite Rothbard's preposterous claim that they were "the soul of the [Republican] party," and represented "majority sentiment in the party," the fact is far otherwise. Rothbard seems actually to have believed that the only reason the so-called "Old Right Republicans" perennially "managed to lose the presidential nomination" is that said nomination was "perpetually stolen from them by the Eastern Establishment–Big Banker–Rockefeller wing of the party," which relied on "media clout, as well as hardball banker threats to call in the delegates' loans." Rothbard seems actually to have believed that "Senator [Robert A.] Taft [of Ohio] was robbed of the Republican nomination in 1952" in precisely this way — "by a Rockefeller-Morgan Eastern banker cabal, using their control of respectable 'Republican' media."[29] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note29)But if the "Eastern Establishment–Big Banker–Rockefeller wing of the party" was so powerful, why was it never able to put its own man, Nelson Rockefeller, in the White House — or even win him the GOP nomination? It's not as though he didn't try for it time and again. The fact is that, as Clyde Wilson puts it, the "Old Right" members of the Republican party simply "never had sufficient strength" within the party "to nominate a presidential candidate or prevent very many evils."[30]
Notes
[1] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#note30) John T. Flynn, The Decline of the American Republic (New York: Devin-Adair, 1955), p. 113.[2] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref2) William Manchester, The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932–1972 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1974), p. 5.[3] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref3) John T. Flynn, The Roosevelt Myth (Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing, 1949 [1948]), p. 38.[4] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref4) Garet Garrett, The People's Pottage (Caldwell, ID: Caxton, 1953), p. 27.[5] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref5) Ibid.[6] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref6) Flynn, The Roosevelt Myth, p. 37.[7] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref7) Ibid., pp. 37, 36.[8] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref8) Quoted in John E. Moser, Right Turn: John T. Flynn and the Transformation of American Liberalism (New York: NYU Press, 2005), p. 3.[9] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref9) Justin Raimondo, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement(Burlingame, CA: Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993), p. 52.[10] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref10) Jude Blanchette, "Libertarianism, Conservatism, and All That." (http://mises.org/daily/1674) November 16, 2004.[11] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref11) Rothbard, "The Transformation of the American Right." (http://mises.org/daily/3815)[12] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref12) Moser, Right Turn, p. 3.[13] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref13) Murray N. Rothbard, "Life in the Old Right." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard45.html) August 1994.[14] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref14) Rothbard, Left and Right (http://mises.org/daily/910).[15] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref15) Ibid (http://mises.org/daily/910).[16] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref16) Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 194.[17] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref17) Ibid., p. 191.[18] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref18) Ronald Radosh, "The Myth of the New Deal," in A New History of Leviathan: Essays on the Rise of the American Corporate State, ed. Ronald Radosh and Murray N. Rothbard (New York: Dutton, 1972), p. 191.http://images.mises.org/icons/pdf.png (http://mises.org/books/newhistoryleviathan.pdf)[19] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref19) Arthur Ekirch, The Decline of American Liberalism (New York: Longmans, 1955), p. 276.[20] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref20) Radosh, "The Myth of the New Deal," p. 187.[21] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref21) Rothbard, Left and Right (http://mises.org/daily/910).[22] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref22) Leonard P. Liggio, Why the Futile Crusade? (New York: Center for Libertarian Studies, 1978), p. 14.[23] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref23) Moser, Right Turn, p. 113.[24] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref24) Sheldon Richman, "New Deal Nemesis: The 'Old Right' Jeffersonians." Independent Review, Fall 1996, p. 203.[25] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref25) Murray N. Rothbard, "Life in the Old Right." See also Murray N. Rothbard, "The Life and Death of the Old Right," (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard25.html) Rothbard-Rockwell Report September 1990.[26] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref26) Radosh, "The Myth of the New Deal," p. 167.[27] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref27) Richman, "New Deal Nemesis," p. 211.[28] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref28) Sheldon Richman, "A Matter of Degree, Not Principle: The Founding of the American Liberty League."Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (Spring 1982), pp. 146–147.[29] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref29) Rothbard, "Life in the Old Right."[30] (http://mises.org/daily/3848#ref30) Clyde Wilson, "Save America! Vote Republican!" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson14.html) September 30, 2003.

[Agorism]

I'm just going to re-post a quote from one of my many reponses to you, and then quote my key comments on the subject.

"You know, I've already dealt with the issues involved with [Elizabeth Warren] directly with you in another thread, so I get you starting a new one to divert attention."



No you didn't.

The topic of the threads has always been her being a fraudster, which she is.

[LimitedGovernment]

This is not exactly an accurate portrayal of the Old Right. (Sorry I can't find an audio recording of this on Mises Media, so I only have a wall of text)

Wow. So, yeah, "liberal" and "conservative" really are meaningless boogeyman words as they're used in most of current political debates.

[Cowlesy]

She should stick at Harvard filling brains with mush.

[LibertyEagle]

Call it whatever you want, hb. There have always been big government leftists in the Republican Party; there were also limited government conservatives. There also used to be some of the latter in the Democratic Party. No one in their right mind would say that people who were for The New Deal were limited government conservatives.

[LibertyEagle]

Wow. So, yeah, "liberal" and "conservative" really are meaningless boogeyman words as they're used in most of current political debates.

Yes, because both terms have been twisted to mean something entirely different than they used to mean. For example, you will hear people nowadays referring to "big government conservatives". This is such a dichotomy, because if one is for big government, they absolutely are not a conservative.

[heavenlyboy34]

Call it whatever you want, hb. There have always been big government leftists in the Republican Party; there were also limited government conservatives. There also used to be some of the latter in the Democratic Party. No one in their right mind would say that people who were for The New Deal were limited government conservatives.

Yep. That's why we have to use the phrase "small/limited government" as a qualifier for specific conservatives, as serious limitations of centralized power are borrowed from the classical liberal tradition and aren't truly conservative. (no offense intended, btw)

[heavenlyboy34]

Wow. So, yeah, "liberal" and "conservative" really are meaningless boogeyman words as they're used in most of current political debates.
Indeed. It's sleight of hand that's designed to manipulate audiences.

[MelissaCato]

Meanwhile, I just copied a recipe for Olive-Oil Cake With Candied Oranges off the internet. I'm taking this to the Memorial Day event @ Memorial Lake. Sshhh don't tell anyone. ;o)

[John F Kennedy III]

Who is Elizabeth Warren?

[angelatc]

I hate that liberal freak with a passion. The fact that there's anybody here defending her politically is just another sign of the liberal infestation.


"You built a factory out there? Good for you," she says. "But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."

There's about ten things in that statement alone that make me want to throw up, but let's start with "We paid taxes, too."

And it's especially sweet coming from a woman who has lived off the public dime, and subsequently writing about it, her whole life, and is now worth millions.

[Kluge]

I hate that liberal freak with a passion. The fact that there's anybody here defending her politically is just another sign of the liberal infestation.



There's about ten things in that statement alone that make me want to throw up, but let's start with "We paid taxes, too."

And it's especially sweet coming from a woman who has lived off the public dime, and subsequently writing about it, her whole life, and is now worth millions.

Yeah. She's total sleaze, and the left idolizes her.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Ron Paul went out of his way to attack Warren, which is something he does not usually do. So that should show anyone here just how politically-vile this woman is.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/192317-ron-paul-elizabeth-warren-is-a-socialist

Her lying about being an Indian is absolutely relevant. Especially since it seems to have been used for career advancement.

[LimitedGovernment]

I hate that liberal freak with a passion. The fact that there's anybody here defending her politically is just another sign of the liberal infestation.

Yeah. She's total sleaze, and the left idolizes her.

Oh look, It's another set of statements that back up many people's impression that Ron Paul and his supporters are clueless, disrespectful, happy-to-bully zealots.


Ron Paul went out of his way to attack Warren, which is something he does not usually do. So that should show anyone here just how politically-vile this woman is.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/192317-ron-paul-elizabeth-warren-is-a-socialist

Her lying about being an Indian is absolutely relevant. Especially since it seems to have been used for career advancement.

If you actually read the article or watch the interview, you'll see plainly that Paul was asked about her statement. He didn't bring it up.

If you actually looked at the history of the publicly available records on Elizabeth Warren, you'd see that she marked herself as "white" in her applications and only listed herself in the faculty directory as having native American ancestry.



Seriously, if you're going to make claims about someone, be sure that they're true without a shadow of a reasonable doubt - for your own sake in not being "the boy who cried wolf", if for nothing else.

[LibertyEagle]

Yep. That's why we have to use the phrase "small/limited government" as a qualifier for specific conservatives, as serious limitations of centralized power are borrowed from the classical liberal tradition and aren't truly conservative. (no offense intended, btw)

:rolleyes: The definitions of all of these have changed, hb. They all have to be defined when we use them and if we do that, it doesn't really matter. I will tell you though, that using the term "liberal" to describe your beliefs, however well-meaning, anywhere close to a Republican, will lead to everything you say thereafter being ignored.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Seriously, if you're going to make claims about someone, be sure that they're true without a shadow of a reasonable doubt - for your own sake in not being "the boy who cried wolf", if for nothing else.

I did. And so are the people of Massachusetts. Warren's campaign is coming off the rails for a reason.

[Kluge]

Oh look, It's another set of statements that back up many people's impression that Ron Paul and his supporters are clueless, disrespectful, happy-to-bully zealots.


Hey pal, I'm hardly a staunch Republican, and at first, I actually thought that Warren may have some semblance of sincerity--sorta like Kucinich. In other words, I thought that perhaps she might mean well. Then came her stance that she just might vote to bomb Iran...then came her clueless comments on economics....then I watched an interview on the Daily Show where they were drooling over her and hanging on her every word--and she sounded like the biggest fucking phony I'd ever heard.

Her Native American roots or non-roots don't concern me in the least. The fact that she's so blindly adored and so ignorant (or worse, knowingly supporting both wars and bad economics), makes her dangerous. Could be Pelosi on steroids if she gets into office.

So whaddaya say you shaddap? I'm not respectful to people like her, Pelosi or whomever else from the government that you trot out who'd help out with wars, Middle Class destruction and wrecking civil liberties, left or right.

[LimitedGovernment]

Warren's campaign is coming off the rails for a reason.

I should hope not. She's far better on economic issues than her opponent is. Have you looked at their policymaking history?



Hey pal, I'm hardly a staunch Republican, and at first, I actually thought that Warren may have some semblance of sincerity--sorta like Kucinich. In other words, I thought that perhaps she might mean well. Then came her stance that she just might vote to bomb Iran...then came her clueless comments on economics....then I watched an interview on the Daily Show where they were drooling over her and hanging on her every word--and she sounded like the biggest fucking phony I'd ever heard.

Her positions on Iran and general economics don't matter that much if they aren't her focus as a senator. Moreover, she's been willing to sit down with people and ask them about their views. When she was confronted by a "liberal" blogger on the issue of her statement on Iran being after nukes, she said she thought that the research data supported the idea that Iran was after a weapon. When told that she was wrong and given specifics, "She said she'd look into it, saying it's important that political statements not [...] add fuel to the fire."

Again, compare that to her opponent.

Of course she's going to sound "phony" to you if you're going into it looking to interpret her in a negative light - or expecting to find her untrustworthy - and don't directly evaluate her policy history.


Her Native American roots or non-roots don't concern me in the least. The fact that she's so blindly adored and so ignorant (or worse, knowingly supporting both wars and bad economics), makes her dangerous. Could be Pelosi on steroids if she gets into office.

Being leery of someone who is fawned over is totally legitimate - but the mass public fawning over someone doesn't necessarily mean that she's corrupt or the worst option - which you seem to be inferring.


So whaddaya say you shaddap? I'm not respectful to people like her, Pelosi or whomever else from the government that you trot out who'd help out with wars, Middle Class destruction and wrecking civil liberties, left or right.

And again with the trying to bully people into silence, and being self-righteous about your behavior.

[angelatc]

Oh look, It's another set of statements that back up many people's impression that Ron Paul and his supporters are clueless, disrespectful, happy-to-bully zealots.

If that's what the Elizabeth Warren fan boiz think of me, I'm doing something right. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - ROTFL. Because the government obviously wasn't big enough already. She's a rich socialist. Enough said.







If you actually read the article or watch the interview, you'll see plainly that Paul was asked about her statement. He didn't bring it up. But he answered with a direct attack on her, something he rarely does. Or do you seriously somehow not believe that she's a socialist?


If you actually looked at the history of the publicly available records on Elizabeth Warren, you'd see that she marked herself as "white" in her applications and only listed herself in the faculty directory as having native American ancestry.

So, like Barack Obama, she changes the facts about her history when it behooves her to do so. Got it.

[angelatc]

I did. And so are the people of Massachusetts. Warren's campaign is coming off the rails for a reason.

I haven't seen any polling, but as I said in another thread, she's the only person in the world that would convince me to vote for Scott Brown.

She's one of the people that started the flat out lie that half of all bankruptcies are the result of medical bills. She is evil, through and through. And the worst kind of evil - she's a smooth talker.

[LimitedGovernment]

But he answered with a direct attack on her, something he rarely does. Or do you seriously somehow not believe that she's a socialist?


I'm ignoring your other statements because they just repeat your personal talking points.

However, I want to point out that I don't think that socialism is a bad thing. Public schooling is socialist. Public water treatment is socialist. Public broadcasting is socialist.

So on and so on.

The question to ask is how much socialism we want, and how socialist programs operate.

Do you support complete privatization of everything? I mean, are you a fully individualist anarchist?

[Kluge]

And again with the trying to bully people into silence, and being self-righteous about your behavior.

If you think that "shaddap" (the cartoon version of "shut-up") is bullying, you are a namby-pamby, weak-kneed, yellow-bellied, hysterical weenie.

And yotta have a look at yourself before you call anyone self-righteous. I don't like Scott Whatshisname, he's a placeholder until someone comes along that's actually worth a damn, as far as I'm concerned. And Warren is corrupt--elect her--watch her fund wars, expand the gov't, vote against pro-legalization bills and vote away your civil liberties. You new to this rodeo, sonny?

[angelatc]

I'm ignoring your other statements because they just repeat your personal talking points.

However, I want to point out that I don't think that socialism is a bad thing.
Do you support complete privatization of everything? I mean, are you a fully individualist anarchist?

You didn't answer my question - do you believe that she's a socialist?

Socialism isn't a bad thing. OMFG. Why are you even here? Socialism is evil.

Yes, I believe that everything should be privatized. I am not an ideologue, meaning I will settle for less. But the ultimate goal should indeed always be the privatization of everything.

Hows that education thing working out for ya? Remember, I live near Detroit - the socialist capital of the country.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I should hope not. She's far better on economic issues than her opponent is.

I'm sorry: what? How is a woman whom Ron Paul himself described as a "socialist" good on economic issues? Is it her raising taxes stance, or her oversight of TARP bailout funds that you like better?

[angelatc]

And Warren is corrupt--elect her--watch her fund wars, expand the gov't, vote against pro-legalization bills and vote away your civil liberties. You new to this rodeo, sonny?

She's not corrupt. She's a socialist. That's what they do. History proves it over and over again.

[Kluge]

She's not corrupt. She's a socialist. That's what they do. History proves it over and over again.

Well, in my opinion, all socialists are corrupt. Slight disagreement, nothing to quibble over.

[LimitedGovernment]

If you think that "shaddap" (the cartoon version of "shut-up") is bullying, you are a namby-pamby, weak-kneed, yellow-bellied, hysterical weenie.

And yotta have a look at yourself before you call anyone self-righteous. I don't like Scott Whatshisname, he's a placeholder until someone comes along that's actually worth a damn, as far as I'm concerned. And Warren is corrupt--elect her--watch her fund wars, expand the gov't, vote against pro-legalization bills and vote away your civil liberties. You new to this rodeo, sonny?

So you're saying that offensive tone of voice (as in "going offensive"), associating me with destroying America, and telling me - in whatever words - that I should shut up and go away, is perfectly acceptable behavior in your eyes?

If Warren shows me a disregard for others' beliefs, dismissiveness towards research data, or a tendency to attack her opponents, I'll instantly switch my position on her. The same is true if - actual proof - comes to light that she has engaged in fraudulent behavior. To this point, I've seen her make efforts to keep big money out of her campaign, focus on positive ads and statements, respond directly to questions, and display what I view as empathy for others - even if that leads her to what I think are misguided political stances on some issues.


Socialism isn't a bad thing. OMFG. Why you even here?

Yes, I believe that everything should be privatized. I am not an ideologue, meaning I will settle for less. But the ultimate goal should always be the privatization of everything.

I'm here because the movement is about more than just your personal views. I'm guessing that you'e never heard of left-libertarianism, socialist anarchism, or the detailed positions of some of the founders.

Your absolute individualism and privatism is more uncommon than my views are, even within the pro-Ron Paul movement.


I'm sorry: what? How is a woman whom Ron Paul himself described as a "socialist" good on economic issues? Is it her raising taxes stance, or her oversight of TARP bailout funds that you like better?

It's her questioning of Tim Geithner and the Fed, her policymaking on removing fine print and needlessly complex legal procedures, and general advocacy for the middle class that I like better than her opponent's pushes for typical GOP big government positions and his spot as one of the candidates to receive the most money from Wall Street.

[angelatc]

I'm here because the movement is about more than just your personal views. I'm guessing that you'e never heard of left-libertarianism, socialist anarchism, or the detailed positions of some of the founders.

Your absolute individualism and privatism is more uncommon than my views are, even within the pro-Ron Paul movement.

Left-Libertarianism is a farce. I've never heard Paul say that he believes in a little bit of socialism. Socialism is evil and greedy. There's no such thing as "the common good."

Disregard for the data - again, the paper whe wrote blaming half of all bankruptcies on medical bills has been debunked by several peers. Since she showed a serious disregard for that data, will you go away now?

[angelatc]

It's her questioning of Tim Geithner and the Fed, her policymaking on removing fine print and needlessly complex legal procedures, and general advocacy for the middle class that I like better than her opponent's pushes for typical GOP big government positions and his spot as one of the candidates to receive the most money from Wall Street.

You mean, you like her because she drums up class warfare. Please stop helping us already....you're killing us here.

Big government positions aren't the problem - it's just the GOP big government positions - do I have that right?

[Kluge]

So you're saying that offensive tone of voice (as in "going offensive"), associating me with destroying America, and telling me - in whatever words - that I should shut up and go away, is perfectly acceptable behavior in your eyes?

If Warren shows me a disregard for others' beliefs, dismissiveness towards research data, or a tendency to attack her opponents, I'll instantly switch my position on her. The same is true if - actual proof - comes to light that she has engaged in fraudulent behavior. To this point, I've seen her make efforts to keep big money out of her campaign, focus on positive ads and statements, respond directly to questions, and display what I view as empathy for others - even if that leads her to what I think are misguided political stances on some issues.



Go and cry. It'll make you feel better. And please quote where I said you were destroying America, but now that you mention it--you could be part of the problem. My "shaddap" was mostly directed towards you're whinyness, and I stand by it, given your own words.

So let me get this right, if Warren isn't "polite" enough or disregards other people's beliefs (oh, like the founding father's) for your tastes, you'll dump her like a cheap whore. And you really think she's going to make this blatantly obvious in a campaign? You are aware that she's already waffled on the war issue, right?

That "empathy" you see is feigned empathy. She's a lawyer. Their specialty is to jerk your emotions around.

But hey, you are a socialist, of course you cheerlead her. And yet your moniker is "limitedgovernment." What a joke.

[angelatc]

Go and cry. It'll make you feel better. And please quote where I said you were destroying America, but now that you mention it--you could be part of the problem. My "shaddap" was mostly directed towards you're whinyness, and I stand by it, given your own words.

So let me get this right, if Warren isn't "polite" enough or disregards other people's beliefs (oh, like the founding father's) for your tastes, you'll dump her like a cheap whore. And you really think she's going to make this blatantly obvious in a campaign? You are aware that she's already waffled on the war issue, right?

That "empathy" you see is feigned empathy. She's a lawyer. Their specialty is to jerk your emotions around.

But hey, you are a socialist, of course you cheerlead her. And yet your moniker is "limitedgovernment." What a joke.

Oh, I'm sure the same woman who just said that the banks can't regulate themselves (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57433523/warren-bank-self-regulation-wrong-and-dangerous/)(presumably not mentioning they're already the most heavily regulated industry in the country) will totally be on board with ending the Fed. And competing currencies ? Yeah, she's so understanding of markets and the necessity of losses in them, it's a no brainer that she'd support that.

And unless I missed it, he still hasn't answered the question - does he believe that Warren is a socialist?

[LimitedGovernment]

Left-Libertarianism is a farce. I've never heard Paul say that he believes in a little bit of socialism. Socialism is evil and greedy. There's no such thing as "the common good."

Disregard for the data - again, the paper whe wrote blaming half of all bankruptcies on medical bills has been debunked by several peers. Since she showed a serious disregard for that data, will you go away now?


You mean, you like her because she drums up class warfare. Please stop helping us already....you're killing us here.

Big government positions aren't the problem - it's just the GOP big government positions - do I have that right?

Keep reaching, you might actually touch reality.

Like the fact that I've donated several times to Paul's campaign, have worked on grassroots programs to get movement candidates elected, and am actively trying to bring other people into coalitions that will help to further the movement.

People like you and comments like yours work to destroy that. You'd rather fight anyone who doesn't 100% agree with you than work together for common interest.

Of course, you just stated that you don't think that there's anything like "the common good", so I suppose it should be expected that you'd have such an extreme position.


As for the 2005 article, it is written in a way that it include data that I wouldn't under the headings that the article uses. I think it's misleading, though it's not black & white fraud. The article was peer-reviewed and has been cited in other journals, as well as investigated independently. The fact is that despite its obvious intent to push people toward a single-payer health care system, it doesn't engage in data forgery - which is what I understand the claim against it to be.

The article: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2005/02/02/hlthaff.w5.63.full.pdf

It dampens my impression of her and her husband, but isn't nearly enough for me to me to decry her as a horrible person who is going to ruin the country, as you are - nor is it enough for me to endorse her opponent over her.

[Kluge]

Oh, I'm sure the same woman who just said that the banks can't regulate themselves (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57433523/warren-bank-self-regulation-wrong-and-dangerous/)(presumably not mentioning they're already the most heavily regulated industry in the country) will totally be on board with ending the Fed. And competing currencies ? Yeah, she's so understanding of markets and the necessity of losses in them, it's a no brainer that she'd support that.

She's no different than any other loser in the Senate. She actually reminds me of Franken, who voted for the NDAA during the first round, had a big outcry, then voted against it and wrote a zillion articles on how wonderful he was for voting against it. He claims to be a smart guy, but them claims to have been fooled on issues like the Iraq War (which he supported). Total lying scumbag. Even me as non-foreign policy knowledgeable person (at the time), could see that that was a pile of bullshit.

Anyone who would kill so flagrantly and without genuine research is human excrement. Warren, given just her waffling on Iran, is in the same class. And while her economics are atrocious, that was the first flag for me with this woman.

[LimitedGovernment]

Oh, I'm sure the same woman who just said that the banks can't regulate themselves (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57433523/warren-bank-self-regulation-wrong-and-dangerous/)(presumably not mentioning they're already the most heavily regulated industry in the country) will totally be on board with ending the Fed. And competing currencies ? Yeah, she's so understanding of markets and the necessity of losses in them, it's a no brainer that she'd support that.

And unless I missed it, he still hasn't answered the question - does he believe that Warren is a socialist?

She's obviously a socialist by the definition that I gave. The vast majority of everyone in the world is.

Again, a person doesn't have to be for ending the Federal Reserve System in order to have a collection of economic policies worth voting for over someone whose interests and voting record lie with the people who arguably engineered the bailouts and benefited from them.


Go and cry. It'll make you feel better. And please quote where I said you were destroying America, but now that you mention it--you could be part of the problem. My "shaddap" was mostly directed towards you're whinyness, and I stand by it, given your own words.

So let me get this right, if Warren isn't "polite" enough or disregards other people's beliefs (oh, like the founding father's) for your tastes, you'll dump her like a cheap whore. And you really think she's going to make this blatantly obvious in a campaign? You are aware that she's already waffled on the war issue, right?

That "empathy" you see is feigned empathy. She's a lawyer. Their specialty is to jerk your emotions around.

But hey, you are a socialist, of course you cheerlead her. And yet your moniker is "limitedgovernment." What a joke.

You continue to prove my points.

By the way, the founding fathers were socialists, too. They created a thing called the US Government. They, like me, also wanted limits set on what that socialist institution could do.


I've engaged with you hoping that you'd eventually become civil and respond fairly. That hasn't happened, and I've given you far more chances to do so than I normally do. I'm not responding to either of you from here on.

[Kluge]

I've engaged with you hoping that you'd eventually become civil and respond fairly. That hasn't happened, and I've given you far more chances to do so than I normally do. I'm not responding to either of you from here on.

Because you lost the debate. Man up.

[Cleaner44]

So it slants to the right, not the left - both in funding and in content.

Rupert Murdoch backs Hillary Clinton: by their friends you shall know them (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/murd-m10.shtml)

Murdoch, News Corp Sixth Biggest Hillary Donor (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/1620/murdoch-news-corp-sixth-biggest-hillary-donor/)

‘Conservative’ Rupert Murdoch endorses Hillary Clinton (http://www.brookesnews.com/060611murdoch.html)

Rupert Murdoch bucks New York Post, donates to Hillary Clinton (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-02-04/gossip/17890533_1_hillary-clinton-clinton-presidency-clinton-s-senate)

Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-1600694.html)

[thoughtomator]

I've engaged with you hoping that you'd eventually become civil and respond fairly. That hasn't happened, and I've given you far more chances to do so than I normally do. I'm not responding to either of you from here on.

Having no dog in this fight, let me point out that you opened your end of this conversation with a gross mischaracterization of an opposing point of view.

If you want respect you have to give it to others first.

[LimitedGovernment]

Rupert Murdoch backs Hillary Clinton: by their friends you shall know them (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/murd-m10.shtml)

Murdoch, News Corp Sixth Biggest Hillary Donor (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/1620/murdoch-news-corp-sixth-biggest-hillary-donor/)

‘Conservative’ Rupert Murdoch endorses Hillary Clinton (http://www.brookesnews.com/060611murdoch.html)

Rupert Murdoch bucks New York Post, donates to Hillary Clinton (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-02-04/gossip/17890533_1_hillary-clinton-clinton-presidency-clinton-s-senate)

Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-1600694.html)

True, News Corp is most interested in propping up other power figures. Even so, its funding and content slants to the GOP side. The same is true for the formerly-owned news site.

[LimitedGovernment]

Having no dog in this fight, let me point out that you opened your end of this conversation with a gross mischaracterization of an opposing point of view.

If you want respect you have to give it to others first.

And what was that gross mischaracterization that you're referring to?

[specsaregood]

However, I want to point out that I don't think that socialism is a bad thing. Public schooling is socialist. Public water treatment is socialist. Public broadcasting is socialist.


lmao, that is all.

[thoughtomator]

And what was that gross mischaracterization that you're referring to?

The very first line of your very first post in this thread.

[LimitedGovernment]

The very first line of your very first post in this thread.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion. I've quoted that post below.

Tell me, are you being disingenuous with your claim that I was making a "gross mischaracterization", or did you simply not connect the line to the quotes that I was referencing?

Because to anyone who paid attention to the second part, it should be clear that I wasn't mischaracterizing Agorism - I was dramatizing Agorism's attitude for the purpose of illustrating it. Negative repping me, saying that EW is a communist, denying established facts backed up by documentation, and dismissing arguments are all evidence of an extreme bias on Agorism's part - a bias well represented by the quote "I'll attack her on anything that I can - all information be damned!" Moreover, as I stated, Agorism hasn't laid out any objections to EW that I haven't responded to, minus this new one about recepies - which I'm not going to devote significant time to until other people on both sides have combed over the issue and made my investigation easier.

tl;dr It's not mischaracterizing someone to call them out by using hyperbole.


Translation: "I hate Elizabeth Warren for undisclosed reasons! I'll attack her on anything that I can - all information be damned!"

Agorism has only provided one reason for attacking Warren. I've debunked all of the claims about Elizabeth Warren to date in threads that Agorism has started - aside from her blood relationship to a Cherokee ancestor and this new stuff about recipes.

This is Agorism's reaction:


Yep, she supports liberal justices and liberal policies to help herself cheat the system.


Wow. You negative repped me with the note "She's a communist".

Really?

Really?

Edit:

And let me make it clear: If it turns out that Elizabeth Warren purposely and knowingly deceived people in official documents, I'll be the first to point to the issue. At this point, everything is just speculation, slander, and libel because there isn't a preponderance of evidence to support the claim. The best arguments for the claim are tenuous.

[Revolution9]

So the claim is that indians in Oklahoma have really old recipes for crab? Really? They get a lot of crabmeat in Oklahoma? Especially "generations" ago? I was not aware of that.

They substituted crawfish tails. They saw it in some smoke signals somewhere when they were smoke signal surfing.

HTH
Rv9

[Revolution9]

If you want to use honest meanings, then "liberal media" wouldn't be the correct terminology, either.

You are the dishonest one who insists labels must be hung about necks as you deem. You have a very limited spectral vision and divide things into two discrete wavelengths. Not how it works pal.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Wow. So, yeah, "liberal" and "conservative" really are meaningless boogeyman words as they're used in most of current political debates.

Yer starting to get the drift. Maybe stick in the "sarcastic mind" for a few. It seems to offer you better insights than that other gobblety gook you spout endlessly with no ass to back it up.

Rev9

[thoughtomator]

Tell me, are you being disingenuous with your claim that I was making a "gross mischaracterization", or did you simply not connect the line to the quotes that I was referencing?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Let me explain something to you. When they IQ tested me, I broke the meter. You can't bullshit me so don't even try. Doubling down on dishonest argumentation is a one-way trip into neg rep land and I've been on the Internet a decade before most people ever heard of it so I've seen every such technique in existence enough to spot it a mile away.

You will treat others with the same level of respect that you feel you yourself deserve from here on in, and give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, or you will be treated with the same contempt. If the history of similarly arrogant-out-of-the-gate posters is any indication, the moment you get a taste of the medicine you're dishing out you will run crying home to mommy.

[Revolution9]

Yep. That's why we have to use the phrase "small/limited government" as a qualifier for specific conservatives, as serious limitations of centralized power are borrowed from the classical liberal tradition and aren't truly conservative. (no offense intended, btw)

Central power costs alot of cash. If you want to conserve cash you don't have a central power that sucks it up. ERG-o. that stance is conservative. What is so hard to figure out about that. It doesn't take any frikkin' backflips through philosophical semanticisms and labels. It is what it does.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Oh look, It's another set of statements that back up many people's impression that Ron Paul and his supporters are clueless, disrespectful, happy-to-bully zealots.<snip drivel>

Sonny boy.. Just what the frak are you doing here. You have had your ass kicked with pure facts, yer philosophy decimated by semantic correction, your diatribe's dick is in the dirt now because you have resorted to low level pre-pubescent ad hominem attacks because you do not like an honest opinion. Tough shit pal. You are going against real intellects here..not a bunch of knee jerk mush brained right or left wing idiots. You came to a gunfight armed with a pez dispenser.

HTH
Rev9

[Revolution9]

I'm ignoring your other statements because they just repeat your personal talking points.

However, I want to point out that I don't think that socialism is a bad thing. Public schooling is socialist. Public water treatment is socialist. Public broadcasting is socialist.

So on and so on.

Public schooling is a right wing authoritarian concept to get the kiddies ready for gubmnt service. Public water treatment has been forcing flouride on the populace, killing them and thir teeth., Is it any wonder the state that first had flouridation now has the largest populace with no teeth. Public broadcasting is propaganda. Fer crissakes, I threw my TV out when MacNeil was softballing Cheney. Went straight to the dumpster before the NewsHour was even over.

rev9

[angelatc]

She's obviously a socialist by the definition that I gave. The vast majority of everyone in the world is.

Again, a person doesn't have to be for ending the Federal Reserve System in order to have a collection of economic policies worth voting for over someone whose interests and voting record lie with the people who arguably engineered the bailouts and benefited from them.



You continue to prove my points.

By the way, the founding fathers were socialists, too. They created a thing called the US Government. They, like me, also wanted limits set on what that socialist institution could do.


I've engaged with you hoping that you'd eventually become civil and respond fairly. That hasn't happened, and I've given you far more chances to do so than I normally do. I'm not responding to either of you from here on.

Nothing fair about socialism. YOu've done nothing but mutter talking points . Glad to be rid of you.

[angelatc]

Yer starting to get the drift. Maybe stick in the "sarcastic mind" for a few. It seems to offer you better insights than that other gobblety gook you spout endlessly with no ass to back it up.

Rev9

That was from a guy who doesn't like the GOP big government solutions, but is perfectly fine with the Warren's big government solutions. She's so much smarter than we are, you see, that we're lucky that she would even consider running our lives for us.

[Kluge]

That was from a guy who doesn't like the GOP big government solutions, but is perfectly fine with the Warren's big government solutions. She's so much smarter than we are, you see, that we're lucky that she would even consider running our lives for us.

Man, that sums up the left's politician worship so very well. +rep

[angelatc]

Again, a person doesn't have to be for ending the Federal Reserve System in order to have a collection of economic policies worth voting for over someone whose interests and voting record lie with the people who arguably engineered the bailouts and benefited from them..

As much as I dislike Scott Brown's political positions, the only reason he was elected in the first place was the direct result of a public backlash against a radical social / economic policy that a firm majority of Americans did not want. He has kept his word on that. And I think I should point out that all the bailouts were passed by a Democratic majority in both houses, although Bush was indeed still in the White House. You might want to remember that when you go around talking about the "GOP big government" policies that you dislike so much.


By the way, the founding fathers were socialists, too. They created a thing called the US Government. They, like me, also wanted limits set on what that socialist institution could do. So you think that all governments are socialist?

[Aratus]

i am now starting to think HARVARD U. set ms. elizabeth up totally snob zone royally
in their ignoble quest to palm her off on d.c people as a native american.:D:D:D
i can live with the idea that the cherokee had 100 coastal tribes to borrow crabcake
recipes from, especially if there was a cookbook in cherokee by say 1825.:cool::eek::cool:

[oyarde]

Who is Elizabeth Warren?

Nutjob , Ivy Leaugue , Commie white chick , claiming to run for Senate and be a Cherokee . She will not be elected and has no Cherokee ancestory , and obviously cannot cook , so she had to have stolen any recipe she got from someone who can. LOL @ this thread , E. Warren , crab meat in the Indian territory ......

[Aratus]

on merrie summer days like this, i really like oyarde's wisdom!

[oyarde]

I have posted a crab cake recipe for all of your entertainment in Off Topic.