Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
You have to establish the rule before you start cataloging the exceptions. Sometimes two things can stem from shared cause, rather than one thing being the cause of the other.

Anyway, if you find the whole "defending Trump" thing as tiresome as I do, we can always discuss a different aspect of the Warren situation. For example: Do you agree that Warren is a person of color? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

No, I do not and I think she should never have ticked the box otherwise.

She is not a 'person of color' because she is predominately white, was raised white, and looks white.
 
The Big Dog said:
And you just keep ignoring the fact that your Warren apologists are lying about what she really said.

It is cool, we are used to it.
Click to expand...

Dr. Keith said:
I'm using your quotes of her. They are right there in your posts. If you have other quotes, please, bring them to the table.
Click to expand...

Hoo boy, you really need me to break that down there for ya? try again, and aspire to comprehension, there is always a first time.
 
Matthew Best said:
Wait just a minute - am I remembering correctly: that Vixen insisted that "parents-in-law" is incorrect English, and that it should actually be written "parent-in-laws"?
Click to expand...

Context is everything. In certain cases it is perfectly technically OK to refer to 'in-laws'. Only a rule-bound American would be unaware of just how flexible the English language is.

You can end a sentence with a proposition and you can treat a hyhenated word as one word, with its concomitant snytax.

You can refer to six mother-in-laws if it is within a context of a group of them, if you wish, and it would not be incorrect.
 
The Big Dog said:
Protip; her "family lore" wasn't that they had an insignificant amount on DNA, her alleged made up "family lore"* was that they were Cherokee

*not shared by much of her family of course

how do you not know this?
Click to expand...

I bolded the lie (ETA: TBD's lie, that is). Don't lie, you'll get coal in your stocking.

The family lore was that there was Cherokee somewhere back in the family tree. "Part". they used the word "Part". Can you understand that? Part. It's a word. Look it up!

They did not say they were Cherokee, they said they were PART Cherokee. They did not say how many other parts there might have been.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Context is everything. In certain cases it is perfectly technically OK to refer to 'in-laws'. Only a rule-bound American would be unaware of just how flexible the English language is.

You can end a sentence with a proposition and you can treat a hyhenated word as one word, with its concomitant snytax.

You can refer to six mother-in-laws if it is within a context of a group of them, if you wish, and it would not be incorrect.
Click to expand...

The 'in-laws' is only correct when omitting the noun such as parents, mothers, sons, etc.

No, "mother-in-laws" is never correct which is why you have failed to ever produce any grammar book or dictionary supporting that claim.

I think this is the first time I've ever heard a Brit accuse Americans of being "rule bound"! ROTFLMAO
 
crescent said:
I bolded the lie (ETA: TBD's lie, that is). Don't lie, you'll get coal in your stocking.

The family lore was that there was Cherokee somewhere back in the family tree. "Part". they used the word "Part". Can you understand that? Part. It's a word. Look it up!

They did not say they were Cherokee, they said they were PART Cherokee. They did not say how many other parts there might have been.
Click to expand...

Somewhere ya say?" Well lets take a look:

"You can’t marry her because she’s part Cherokee and she’s part Delaware. And um, after fighting it as long as they could, my parents went off, they eloped."

Well now that ain't too far at all until you get to Cherokee AND Delaware.

Unless you were claiming that they used "full blooded" to describe their ancestor in their "family lore" which they ain't.
 
Vixen said:
Are you sure that is the ONLY reason?
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm sure.

Vixen said:
Wouldn't the hope of Warren getting her hand's on Trump's $1m be the most salient one?
Click to expand...
To start with, if Trump did write the check it would go to charity. Warren isn't looking for Trump's money.

Trump used this information to call Warren the racist and childish term Pocohantas.
 
The Big Dog said:
False

"You can’t marry her because she’s part Cherokee and she’s part Delaware. And um, after fighting it as long as they could, my parents went off, they eloped."

E. Warren

Sounds like she is saying her mom was that ancestor.
Click to expand...

As long as they could. Er, that is, until the kids came back to the home town from the wedding... the very next day.
 
Vixen said:
As long as they could. Er, that is, until the kids came back to the home town from the wedding... the very next day.
Click to expand...

Yes, AFTER they got married and where they then announced it to their friends. You know, the friends who didn't get invited to the 'big traditional wedding' you claim happened. Why do you think they didn't have that 'big traditional wedding' with all their friends and families in their hometown?
 
Vixen said:
No, it's a paraphrase, hence the quotation marks.
Click to expand...

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT quotation MARKS SIGNIFY IN CONVENTIONAL ENGLISH EITHER SIDE OF THE ATLANTIC?

The clue is in the name.
 
Stacyhs said:
Yes, AFTER they got married and where they then announced it to their friends. You know, the friends who didn't get invited to the 'big traditional wedding' you claim happened. Why do you think they didn't have that 'big traditional wedding' with all their friends and families in their hometown?
Click to expand...

Vixen doesn't seem to understand that as soon as the marriage is complete (or to be certain, consumated) the point of eloping is accomplished.
 
Stacyhs said:
Oh, you rule-bound American, you! Be British and be a bit more flexible with those quotation marks!
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm British, dammit* and I know how to use quotation marks.


*even if I do tend to use the Oxford comma.
 
Leftus said:
But if you said you had to elope because of your Swissness? Then, yes, you are claiming heritage to the point that it's obvious to the general population.

"They were so Swiss, they had to run to the alps to get married, to avoid bigotry" is a claim of ancestry.

Get it now?
Click to expand...

The true test is whether he can yodel Del Shannon's 'Swiss Maid'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom