patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

I would be careful... when you point out these negative FACTS about Obama's record, they don't like that here..... your posts will get deleted by the forum Nazi....

Bullshit. If they are actual "facts" or clearly stated opinions as opposed to "crazy crap from the wingnuts on am radio" then they won't get deleted. Very little crazy carp is deleted either. Some people (could be you) don't seem to know the definition of the word "facts".

For what it's worth my opinion is Obama's record sucks, but I'm not buying into the wingnuts paranoid alternative reality world. Obama is just a run of the mill politician who is in way over his head. He is not a foreign born baby eating, freedom hating, america destroying, world government flunky, who is going to nuke the unborn gay baby whales for jesus no matter how many times ruki, abe,crazy say so.

I don't delete anyone for posting facts, just for relentless racist infantile propoganda.

Oh come on patrick, you are much to kind. These guys don't provide high enough quality postings to rise to what would be the generally accepted standard for being racist infantile propoganda. Comparing them to racists infants is insulting to the average racist infant.

As I noted before - liberals are all for tolerance - as long as it falls in their narrow 3x5inch tolerance window.

Otherwise, you can't meet more intolerant people.

Fuck you too.

Your whiny self-serving bullshit parroting of Fox News shows how sparse and weak your own thoughts are.

Call it Crazy says

why have posts that come from main stream news sources/articles been deleted when they contain actual economic data/facts, unfortunately, that were negative instead of positive?

That has never happened, at least not by me. If someone else owns a thread, they can delete comments on it.

ok. let's see if this is a fact tolerant thread.

Michelle Obama lost her law license in 1994. Official story - she just let it become "inactive". However, that's not how it works - you don't just go through years/expense in law school just to let it "inactivate".

Basically, if you get in trouble, you have 2 options - have a hearing (which will become public record) risking disbarment, or quietly choose to become "inactive" - there is no public record of offense/reason as there was no disbarment hearing...

Reasonable decision is to weigh your options - if disbarment is highly likely - one is better off to become inactive.

Same happened to Barack Obama in January 2008.

Professor Gary North discusses the same:
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1197.html
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1200.html
http://www.garynorth.com/public/10046.cfm

AlexS says

Same happened to Barack Obama in January 2008.

If I remember facts correctly, Obama became the President of the United States in 2008-are am I factually challenged?

lostand confused says

If I remember facts correctly, Obama became the President of the United States in 2008-are am I factually challenged?

Dude! Seriously! Why don't you read links before asking silly questions?

He becamse president - So what? Nixon also became president - his law license was active then, not until later he got into some legal issues with watergate and let it become inactive...

Same with Clinton - he became disbarred after he was caught lying.

You don't lose your license just because you become president.

AlexS says

Michelle Obama lost her law license in 1994. Official story - she just let it become "inactive". However, that's not how it works - you don't just go through years/expense in law school just to let it "inactivate".

Problem is, you don't know law or any other professional certification, obviously.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/

I know people in every Professional field that let their certs go inactive. That's the problem with your insistence on using your experience to judge reality, and by reading so much fishwrap on the interwebs.

CL: if I looked for gullible and easily fooled cadres, I would love people like you!

From your link: " No. A court official confirms that no public disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either of them, contrary to a false Internet rumor. By voluntarily inactivating their licenses, they avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so."

Basically, they are saying that Michelle let her Harvard Education and Passing Bar go to waste to avoid paying hundreds of dollars in annual fees...

My favorite part? CL BELIEVED IT!!!

Is allowing thread owners to delete posts a good idea? In theory, I suppose. But it might lead to charges of "people are deleting my posts because they don't like my arguments."

AlexS says

ok. let's see if this is a fact tolerant thread.

Michelle Obama lost her law license in 1994. Official story - she just let it become "inactive". However, that's not how it works - you don't just go through years/expense in law school just to let it "inactivate".

A perfect example of not having a clue what "facts" are. Starting with the word "lost", inactive isn't lost. It's just inactive. Lost means it was taken away.

There isn't a single fact in any of the three articles posted, it's all opinion. Rockwell even said " I don’t much care. This is not a court of law. This is a court of public opinion.". Didn't you read that far? Actually a more relevant question is do you know the definition and implications of the word opinion?

Example:
"I am not saying that they were ever formally charged with misconduct. I am saying that the most plausible reason for their having abandoned their licenses was to avoid disciplinary action and the threat of public disbarment.". Sorry but saying that "in my opinion the most plausible reason is" (whoops there's that word opinion again) doesn't even come close to the commonly accepted definition of fact other than in the right wingnut world. Note that Rockwell's and North's only sources are quotations from unnamed sources and wikipedia.

Now here is factcheck's version. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/

Note that factcheck actually researched the bar website for the rules, checked for disciplinary actions, wrote to the bar asking why, then lists all 13 of their sources, and provides links to read the sources.

I realize in the right wingnut world that implication and innuendo reign king and certainly trumps carefully researched, fully documented well reasoned articles. So I realize that you probably can't see the difference in the two approaches other than rockwell/north agree with what you would like to believe so it must be fact. But with careful study you might actually find that not to be true. Then again pigs might fly.

lostand confused says

If I remember facts correctly, Obama became the President of the United States in 2008-are am I factually challenged

I always thought he became President in January of 2009.

So, yes, factually challenged.

He became Senator in January 2005.

marcus says

Funny that APOCALYPSEFUCK is the most ignored. His stuff is often tongue in cheek, and sometimes hilarious.

I'm guessing that all the right wingers had to ignore him, because as absurd as what he says is, it probably strikes a nerve.

I don't think that it is the right wingers upset with Apocalypse's Colbertian routine that are putting him on ignore.

I suspect it is people (right wing or not) that don't want to be subject to an endless tirade of profanity laced written imagery describing the horrors of the inevitable cannibal wasteland that is our future.

Unfortunately for them they are missing out on some great tips and trick on surviving in said wasteland.

Cliff notes to bob2356 post:

Bob spends 1st paragraph on arguing the intricacies of what words "lost" and "inactive" mean.

Second and Third paragraph he goes into lala land of what someone else said in a different context on a different subject, completely irrelevent to this subject, and whether Gary wrote facts or opinion.

For the products of publiK sKooling - Gary presents facts (obamas licenses are now inactive) and presents his plausible opinion - there are reasons to that, and normally one becomes "inactive" to avoid public hearing, and that nonsense about "to avoid hundreds of dollars in fees" is ridiculous considering the comparison of that sum to the expense of Harvard Education and Bar Exam (and the fact that for Obamas making upper 6 digits its peanuts).

In the 4th paragraph bob presents the same old tired bullcrap info defending obama. It's funny how the common tactic to avoid public record by quietly becoming "inactive" is not discussed there. Hmmmmm... I wonder why?

Instead bob talks about rules, and disciplinary actions, and sources.

Bob - were you born yesterday? Did you read what Gary is writing? That's precisely the reason why there is NO record, NO disciplinary actions, and NO sources - because the tactic of "i'll just become inactive" was utilized!

Last paragraph bob wastes on childish insults about right wingnuts and flying pigs.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here I present to you the tactic of liberal arguing - namecalling, hysteria, and repeatition of half truths!

freak80 says

Is allowing thread owners to delete posts a good idea? In theory, I suppose. But it might lead to charges of "people are deleting my posts because they don't like my arguments."

The people who complain can then go start their own threads where no one but me could delete their comments. So it seems fair.

It also lets me say "go talk to the thread owner" which reduces the work I have to do!

AlexS says

Bob spends 1st paragraph on arguing the intricacies of what words "lost" and "inactive" mean.

Perfect, your Private Skooling must have been something special. I'll try to use small words from now on. Lost in this context means taken away. Inactive means not used. My wife has an inactive medical license because we are overseas. When we come back it will be activated again. It should not be intricate at all for someone who didn't attend a publiK Skool. No people don't "normally" go inactive on professional licenses to avoid discipline. If that's true prove it. I'll wait. Forever I would think.

Second and third paragraphs talk about the articles you provided to support your "facts". If the articles are completely irrelevant then why did you post them?

Fourth paragraph is factcheck. There is considerable discussion about becoming inactive to avoid to avoid discipline that you somehow managed to miss. Read it perhaps. There are no complaints according to the bar. I'm pretty sure they know. Of course in your world what you/rockwell/north believe is more "fact" than the information provided by the bar. Do you/rockwell/north have information about a complaint that was never filed that the bar(and the rest of the world) was not aware of or do you just believe that one must exist?

I'm sorry that the concept of rules and sources are outside you understanding and are inconvenient to you.

No I wasn't born yesterday. Rockwell/North have created a circular argument. The are no disciplinary records because the license was made inactive, the license was made inactive because of a discipline actions. The problem with that is complaints are public record but there isn't any public record of complaints. Making your license inactive doesn't erase complaints.

Not that it matters to you, but I looked up the statute of the Illinois bar concerning discipline. According to 753 a there must be a hearing board for all complaints. The options available to the hearing board are to make a formal disciplinary action or dismiss the complaint. There is no rule in the statute that allows you to "inactivate" your license in lieu of a formal discipline. Yes it's more of those pesky rules that interferes with believing what's true. So it's not "normal" or even possible in Illinois to inactive a license to avoid discipline.

Sorry if simply presenting the laws according to the state of Illinois bar represents a half truth to you.

I didn't think my insults were childish at all. Well stated and reasonably clever would be more accurate.

AlexS says

CL: if I looked for gullible and easily fooled cadres, I would love people like you!

From your link: " No. A court official confirms that no public disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either of them, contrary to a false Internet rumor. By voluntarily inactivating their licenses, they avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so."

Basically, they are saying that Michelle let her Harvard Education and Passing Bar go to waste to avoid paying hundreds of dollars in annual fees...

My favorite part? CL BELIEVED IT!!!

Do you understand the purpose of Continuing Education?

AlexS says

Professor Gary North discusses the same:

He says that the most plausible reason the Obamas didn't renew their licenses was to avoid prosecution or disbarrment. Maybe they just didn't want to practice law anymore. I know people who change their minds.

Gary North is guessing and people are quoting it as fact

AlexS says

Basically, they are saying that Michelle let her Harvard Education and Passing Bar go to waste to avoid paying hundreds of dollars in annual fees...

CEU's are no fun. Mostly you learn that the seats are hard and the rooms are cold.

AlexS says

Bob spends 1st paragraph on arguing the intricacies of what words "lost" and "inactive" mean.

Lost means someone took it away. Inactive means they didn't continue to pay and receive CEU's.

It's an opinion piece. Quoting it as fact is just plain dumb.

AlexS,

We all know Obama was born in Kenya, so the point about his law license is moot.

I think Robber Baron has the best trolls followed by APOCALYPSEFUCK, but they are both high tier.

marcus says

Funny that APOCALYPSEFUCK is the most ignored. His stuff is often tongue in cheek, and sometimes hilarious.

I'm guessing that all the right wingers had to ignore him, because as absurd as what he says is, it probably strikes a nerve.

I originally thought it was tongue-in-cheek, but then I tried reading it straight, and it was a revelation: like reading a cold, objective documentary of the future.

He is too reserved in his criticism of the NAR, but the rest reads like a manual of how the coming years will play out, together with constructive advice for your family in making it through.

Key concepts: cannibal anarchy as economic philosophy; choosing abandoned McMansions for maximum firefight advantage; planting potatoes; Neo-Nazi hordes; pissing/shitting on banker's faces; and preserving realtor meat for your pets.

epitaph says

I think Robber Baron has the best trolls followed by APOCALYPSEFUCK, but they are both high tier.

Robber Baron is OK, but he is no Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq.

Unfortunately, the last comment from Moneyworth was...
Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq says

This is my playground nancy-boy[Robber Baron]. Go find some other wretches to crap on.

I spend a few weeks in Greece shopping for slaves and some asshole comes in with Frankston-esque ideas.

With that being Moneyworth's last comment I guess we know the result of the conflict over Pnet peons.

elliemae says

It's an opinion piece. Quoting it as fact is just plain dumb.

It is both - fact (Michelle went inactive in '94, Barack in Jan 08), and an opinion explaining this fact - Prof. North throws out an idea, and gets confirmation from people in the know - yes, going inactive is generally used to avoid public record of something not pleasant.

elliemae says

Inactive means they didn't continue to pay and receive CEU's.

Continue to pay what? Few hundred bucks out of combined $500K+ incomes? Aren't you spending way too much time on this silly argument?

CEU's hard seats? What about years and (hundred of) thousands for Harvard education? What about months of studying for a Bar?

Doesn't seem plausible to me... But here comes Bob! Oh no!
more of the same arguments, now he got his Wife with medical license who is out of country! Did Michelle go out of country in '94, or did Barack move it in '08? Nope! Below is the letter describing why it's NOT a good idea to go inactive. Keep on reading.

Bob is still arguing around the fact that no complaints or disbarment or record is issued against INACTIVE Licenses! When storm is brewing, quietly go inactive and issue(s) is(are) dropped! No formal complaints follow... Nothing...

Back to Prof. North: "Remember, he was a United States Senator at the time. How many United States Senators have voluntarily retired from the practice of law and turned in their licenses? Only one"

Only One! Oh, and here Bob, letter to Prof. North from an attorney, confirming his suspicion:

http://www.garynorth.com/public/10046.cfm

"... A grievance can be filed by pretty much anyone, but grievances are confidential because of the potential to damage an attorney's reputation - even when there is no basis for the grievance. Going public with the filing of a grievance is a violation of the accused attorney's confidentiality - and is thus a disciplinary infraction on its own. ONLY after a probable cause panel has determined that there is probable cause to proceed and file a complaint with disciplinary counsel is the complaint (filed by the panel) a matter of public record..."

Grievances are CONFIDENTIAL and filing grievance is a VIOLATION. ONLY AFTER probably cause is established, complaint is filed.

Timeline: Michelle gets grievance, goes inactive before probably cause panel review, and the issue goes away.

Back to the letter:
"... Another Judge in our area was under heavy investigation. Disciplinary Counsel showed up at his office, took 100 files and his assistant's computer. About 10 days later, the Judge resigned for "health reasons". He is listed on the Supreme Court website as "permanently retired". He surrendered all licenses, but his record shows no discipline and no surrender of licenses. The general public knows nothing about what was going on that led to the visit by disciplinary counsel, even though the local bar associations do.

A physician client of mine has 3 licenses - one of which is in a state 800 miles away in which he hasn't practiced for 25 years. He keeps the licenses and pays the fees because giving up his license would look bad on his applications to the other 2 states. It would imply that he had done something wrong. It's not just lawyers who take that approach."

Cliff notes: if panel starts investigation, it's a good idea to "retire" for some reasons - health, or because you don't want to pay, or continue education, etc...

Consider this, back in 1994 Barack wasn't president, and Michelle's law degree and license was a big deal. They are not that rich to just toss it. Yet she goes "inactive".

Sad but unsurprising to see that a thread about trolls is being hijacked by an anti-Obama troll.

AlexS says

CEU's hard seats? What about years and (hundred of) thousands for Harvard education? What about months of studying for a Bar?

The education and bar admission are not lost, merely inactive. If you are admitted to the bar and then choose inactive status, you retain the right re-activate at will. Inactive means only that (a) you don't have to pay active dues and (b) you don't have to waste time on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education. If you are not actively practicing law, i.e. offering legal services to clients, there is no need to remain on active status. Bar admission is a function of state law, some states don't have inactive status, others exempt certain people (e.g. judges) from MCLE. Conversely, going inactive is not a defense to a disciplinary action, which would continue regardless.

CL says

Do you understand the purpose of Continuing Education?

The purpose of Mandatory Continuing Education is to make $ for the industry that provides it. The most conspicuous example is in the medical-industrial complex, where doctors are required to attend and pay for PhRMA infomercials called "Continuing Medical Education" (CME). Eventually the doctors figure out that if they prescribe profitably enough, the drug companies will pay for their CME in Hawaii, which is one of the ways PhRMA controls the medical profession. In law, MCLE is similar, sponsored by the largest operators; big firms are exempt from paying for MCLE because they have political influence and are "allowed" to provide MCLE in-house to their associates at no cost. If it were worthwhile, they wouldn't need to make it mandatory.

curious2 says

If you are admitted to the bar and then choose inactive status, you retain the right re-activate at will.

AlexS says

He keeps the licenses and pays the fees because giving up his license would look bad on his applications to the other 2 states. It would imply that he had done something wrong. It's not just lawyers who take that approach."

AlexS says

giving up his license would look bad

I don't know why you would quote yourself as an appeal to authority, but in any event you're mistaken here. Going inactive does not look bad and it certainly does not mean giving up a license. To the contrary, it means keeping the license, like putting it on a shelf. Do you own any clothes that you aren't wearing right now? You probably keep them in a drawer, but you haven't lost them or given them away. You still have them, they are merely inactive.

david1 wrote that a majority of the trolls are conservatives, but misunderstood that as bias. In fact, it results from the fact that the sample is unrepresentative. Users of P.net are people who can read and write and have access to the Internet. Such people have access to facts, which makes most of them less vulnerable to Faux news. A lot of what people call "conservative" isn't really conservative, nor is it liberal in the sense that the founders understood that term; it is instead retrograde, based on repeating something a preacher or divide-and-misrule politician said without reference to facts of any kind.

HydroCarbon,

When we run out of hydrocarbons we will have cannibal anarchy.

curious2 says

I don't know why you would quote yourself as an appeal to authority, but in any event you're mistaken here.

If you had reading capabilities you would've noticed I was quoting a letter from attorney to prof North. But you don't, so you haven't.

TrollBeGone(tm), "Apply Directly to the Troll."

AlexS says

If you had reading capabilities...But you don't

Obviously we are both capable of reading, we've quoted each other. Your endless need for attention would be better satisfied by doing something useful rather than trolling. On the other hand, there is much to be said for the advice, "do not feed the troll," so having refuted your "arguments" I am going to stop feeding you now.

Curious2, only in your curious imagination does typing "so having refuted your arguments" - is refuting the arguments...

Nevertheless, I'm hearing the flush, and curious2 proudly coming out of bathroom.

CaptainShuddup says

I'm not a right winger. I just don't tow the Liberal line and jump in and sing a few bars of kumbya while Obama drives us all to Hell.

I just like to come here and vent about how the politics of this country effects me. But it seems you can't do that, unless you agree with the Left political views 100% in this country.

And now since I can't even post any threads, I just found that out by trying. The usefulness of this site has expired. So long patneters, it's been fun.

Some of you may have known me as...

Tenpoundbass
Tenouncetrout
TPB
DONE
The GOP
and now this is Captain Shuddup signing off for good.

So long everybody.

A TROLL of TROLLS!! in massive denial.

One of "THE" most repulsive characters I've had the unfortunate experience to read on Patnet.

oh and CRY ME A BLOODY RIVER! boo hoo, don't cry.

People have APOCALYPSEFUCK on ignore!? I don't think I'd still be watching this site if it weren't for him (or her, for all I know)

AlexS:
I allowed my state licenses to go inactive when I chose to practice in another state. That's my own decision - it had nothing to do with complaints against me (none) or disciplinary actions pending (none); it had everything to do with the fact that I just didn't fucking feel like keeping it active.

The Obamas can activate their licenses at will - there are many people who make the same choice. Only a conspiracy theorist would choose to believe some college professor's supposition that there are some phantom reasons to allow a license to lapse or become inactive.

If they're not practicing law, why bother with the license? They have sufficient $$$ to live on without lawyering.

Now, if they chose to denounce their education and surrender their college degrees - well, you might have something there, cupcake.

CL says

AlexS says

Michelle Obama lost her law license in 1994. Official story - she just let it become "inactive". However, that's not how it works - you don't just go through years/expense in law school just to let it "inactivate".

Problem is, you don't know law or any other professional certification, obviously.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/

I know people in every Professional field that let their certs go inactive. That's the problem with your insistence on using your experience to judge reality, and by reading so much fishwrap on the interwebs.

You know, sometimes I wonder if letting my Microsoft Windows for Workgroup 3.11 certification expire was really the right thing to do. I mean some people really value their conventional memory and these newfangled systems, what are they good for??? Just more viruses than you can shake a stick at. In the old days when people got a PC virus, all I had to do was to whip out a bunch of floppy discs, blow on discs a little and an eight hour install later, the system would be as good as new! So what if you couldn't play Commander Keen for a day? At least the dang virus didn't steal your bank account information or upload all that porn to your computer! Miss the old days.

AlexS says

yes, going inactive is generally used to avoid public record of something not pleasant.

Everyone is still waiting for you to provide some proof of this. Still waiting, still waiting, still waiting.

AlexS says

Bob is still arguing around the fact that no complaints or disbarment or record is issued against INACTIVE Licenses! When storm is brewing, quietly go inactive and issue(s) is(are) dropped! No formal complaints follow... Nothing...

You aren't the sharpest knive in the drawer are you. The Illinios bar says it not possible. Where in the statute does it say you can't make a complaint against an inactive license? You did read it didn't you? I did.

AlexS says

Grievances are CONFIDENTIAL and filing grievance is a VIOLATION. ONLY AFTER probably cause is established, complaint is file

A big no shit sherlock holmes moment for you. If there is no probable cause there is action taken. No kidding, you just figured that out, great, you are moving right along. Again where does it say you can't bring a complaint or have a violation against an inactive license. Let us know when you have an answer. Still waiting, still waiting, still waiting. You can't because it's not there. The only exception is under rule 757 and 758 lawyers on inactive status because of disablity have violations stayed (not cancelled, just held) until the disability is cleared. That would be physical or incapacitating mental disability. Public record again.

groundhogdaze says

You know, sometimes I wonder if letting my Microsoft Windows for Workgroup 3.11 certification expire was really the right thing to do.

robertoaribas says

I was debating putting my real estate license into inactive status this year... or maybe in a couple more years... I've never had a complaint action.

Both of you probably have something to hide - altho I'm not sure what could be worse than being a realtor in the first place...

Damn! I didn't make it to the top ten. I need to be more offensive. lol

I wonder how many are trolls and how many really believe what they write...

curious2 says

david1 wrote that a majority of the trolls are conservatives, but misunderstood that as bias. In fact, it results from the fact that the sample is unrepresentative.

Disagree. An unrepresentative sample is selection bias by definition. The bias exists because this is a left leaning blog. Given a majority of the READERS of posts on this forum are likely to disagree with ideas and posts that lean right of center, the fact that the most "disliked" posters are right leaning is not surprising.

But it is not an indication of the overall "trollishness" of the poster himself.

It is more probably a function of the number of posts made and the degree right of center the poster happens to be.

The title of this thread is "Top Trolls" - I was merely pointing out that "most disliked" is not an indication of trollishness..

The "dislike" button as used on this blog is the epitome of an ad hominem attack, albeit a lazy one.

Politifact says

A TROLL of TROLLS!! in massive denial.

One of "THE" most repulsive characters I've had the unfortunate experience to read on Patnet.

oh and CRY ME A BLOODY RIVER! boo hoo, don't cry.

I had a nice talk with Angie Holan today. You're not even authorized to use their moniker to bully and troll internet forums. Not that she's aware of.

That makes you a liability to Potifact.com and Tampa Bay Times, a FACT that I reminder her of.