patrick.net

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.

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.

This is the only way you can argue, mixing apples and oranges. Technologies get outdated fast and IT certifications are voluntary.

But here is my general observations of how liberals argue - bring up irrelevant points, twist words and facts, but - most importantly - start childish name calling, and insult anyone who states things they don't like.

cliff notes: simple facts - michelle went inactive in 1994, barack in jan. 2008. Barack is THE ONLY senator with license to practice law who went inactive. Professor North, who is not particularly right winging obama-marxist calling - asks questions, why that would happen, and shares interesting letters from other practicing attorney(s) confirming his suspicions - Obamas were avoiding public record of something.

Reaction from Liberals on this board? Smear, name calling, mixing and repeating over useless, irrelevant facts (IT certifications, Real Estate licenses, out of country and out of state situations, and on and on and on).

Arguing like little crying babies. wah waah waaah waaah wah waah waaah waaah!

North is actually very level-headed concerning Obama and considers him just a left wing social climber with wife who loves to shop. North even had an article recently, stating in fact that Obama is no more Marxist than Romney - both believe in the same Marxist principles (example: central bank & government control of money and credit), while not believing in other Marxist principles.

Obamas are working hard at doing precisely what their puppet masters are telling them. This way after office Obama will be paid $100K per speech - their only source of income after presidency, since they don't have businesses and their law licenses are "inactive". Precedent - Bubba Clinton.

If Obamas could "re-activate" their law licenses - as some here suggest - they wouldn't need to fullfil orders from their masters so hard.

So, here is my prediction - Obamas will never re-activate their law licenses.

Let's revisit this topic in 5-10 years, or as soon as I am proven wrong.

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.

Haha that's like letting ur Kiss Army membership expire :)

AlexS says

So, here is my prediction - Obamas will never re-activate their law licenses.

Let's revisit this topic in 5-10 years, or as soon as I am proven wrong.

If you promise to shut up about it until then, sure I'll agree

I'm amazed at the amount of time that adults invest into something so beyond trivial.

Are the people that feed the trolls, any less to blame then those that do the so called trolling in the first place? I don't need an ignore button or a troll meter, i trust my internal gauges to decipher between that which is good information and that which is bad.

bdrasin says

shut up about it

Oh, the beauty, the niceness of liberal arguing, the tolerance shown to the opposing views...

bob2356 says

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

Who is everyone? Are you - everyone? Since when? What are you=everyone waiting for? Why don't you=everyone go and try to find public record of grievences against laywers - before they made or passed it through the panel and publish on here. Until youEveryone do - keep on waiting. These records aren't allowed, and don't exist, you EVERYONE you.

bob2356 says

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.

One of us is not the sharpest knive in the drawer - but it is definitely not me. Timeline: complaint against active obama, obama goes inactive, complaint doesn't go to the panel. But sure, you can complain against active or inactive all you want.

EveryoneBob, plz learn how to absorb what you read and use arguments, instead of completely not comprehending what others are saying, jumping to conclusions, name calling and smearing.

I'm voting for Romney but I love to smoke weed and have a good time
I think Obama has proven he's not a leader but I love one of his favorite places to eat breakfast in town http://www.valoisrestaurant.com/Specials.htm

I was born and raised in one of the most concentrated areas of Democrats in the nation. Chicago IL/Cook County

Got nothing but love for my Liberal friends.. It's really never been a big deal
BTW They hate Rahm now for some reason and I think he's doing a good job.

HEY YOU says

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

If you're not being disliked or ignore by at least a few people, you aren't talking about deep and controversial issues. And isn't that the whole point of Internet forums? You can debate ideas that you really can't with coworkers and neighbors.

I've never done weed. What's it like?

I've heard stories of people getting paranoid and calling the cops on themselves. Doesn't sound like fun! ;-)

freak80 says

I've never done weed. What's it like?

I've heard stories of people getting paranoid and calling the cops on themselves. Doesn't sound like fun! ;-)

With today's potent cannabis I would say those stories are probably true.

I'm sure everybody's experience varies but with me it's purely recreational . I get really interested in conversation, TV or music initially then I get hungry then I go to bed. So did that description make you ready to come to the dark side ? haha

AlexS says

going inactive is generally used to avoid public record

AlexS says

These records aren't allowed, and don't exist,

If the records don''t exist then how do you "know" this to be "fact". Your sKool obviously didn't include any curriculum on logic problems.

AlexS says

Timeline: complaint against active obama, obama goes inactive, complaint doesn't go to the panel.

Other than the fact Illinois statute simply doesn't allow this, a problem with your theory which you keep ignoring, if the records don't exist then how do you know this? Where are you getting your information from, divinity perhaps? Was your sKool jesuit?

This is like pulling wings off a fly. Maybe you should get some more sKooling that includes logic.

Freedom of speech is only for some.

freak80 says

I've never done weed. What's it like?

It's awesome - like drinking, only without the loss of motor control, and a happy buzz. You've heard about the exceptions. I highly recommend it.

Patrick, is there another list for non-trolls, people who get lots of likes?

elliemae says

freak80 says

I've never done weed. What's it like?

It's awesome - like drinking, only without the loss of motor control, and a happy buzz. You've heard about the exceptions. I highly recommend it.

Eschew Obfuscation

I never liked it, although most of my friends did. Just made me feel nervous, jumpy, paranoid and trembly. Never really got that "happy" feeling. I really tried to like it, but after several years of occasional use, I finally realized I wasn't actually enjoying the experience. It doesn't necessarily float everyone's boat.

Alex - we get it - you don't like the Obamas and are trying to find a conspiracy just because they don't do what everyone else does.

If Obama did what everyone else did, he wouldn't have become the first black president. And if he wanted to practice law, he'd get his license back.

They are now wealthy, and will never have to practice again. Why would they continue to keep thier licenses active if they never have to walk into a law office again?

AlexS says

IT certifications are voluntary.

So are licenses to practice law.

elliemae says

Why would they continue to keep thier licenses active if they never have to walk into a law office again?

Ellie you are such a killjoy for pointing out the obvious when there are so many grandiose conspiracies to be imagined.

robertoaribas says

Maybe I'm a hobgobblin then, instead of a troll... I'll ask my mom about my family lineage...

I think it is what I said earlier in the week. You make intellectual arguments personal. When someone disagrees with you, you attack them. Takes away from your points and the thread.

curious2 says

AF=Shostakovich is brilliant, 22 users don't know what they're missing.

I didn't get it when I first started reading here. Now I love it.

elliemae says

It's awesome - like drinking, only without the loss of motor control, and a happy buzz. You've heard about the exceptions. I highly recommend it.

This is not at all my experience.

Homeboy says

I never liked it, although most of my friends did. Just made me feel nervous, jumpy, paranoid and trembly. Never really got that "happy" feeling. I really tried to like it, but after several years of occasional use, I finally realized I wasn't actually enjoying the experience. It doesn't necessarily float everyone's boat.

This is my experience. Anxiety and disphoria. DISLIKE>

bg says

like drinking, only without the loss of motor control, and a happy buzz.

I definitely get a happy buzz from drinking if I hit just the right level, about 3 drinks. Too much and I'll regret it later, too little and I won't even notice it. I can believe that there is actually some Irish genetic component to that feeling.

Haven't tried marijuana since college, except for one disastrous experience in Amsterdam. Hadn't realized how much stronger the stuff has gotten. Maybe it will be something fun to do in my old age.

bg says

curious2 says

AF=Shostakovich is brilliant, 22 users don't know what they're missing.

I didn't get it when I first started reading here. Now I love it.

Apocalypsefuck is the guy you want to be around when the zombie apocalypse finally happens.

I definitely get a happy buzz from drinking if I hit just the right level, about 3 drinks.

One drink, I feel good.
Two drinks, I've got a happy buzz going.
Four drinks, I'm naked dancing on the tables. At my age, it ain't pretty.

Not everyone can drink. Not everyone can smoke pot. If it were legal, I would smoke pot every day at the end of the day - just like people have a glass of wine to relax.

Homeboy says

[Cannabis] made me feel nervous, jumpy, paranoid and trembly.

Mandy Lifeboats says

way stronger than I remember.

Hadn't realized how much stronger the stuff has gotten

bg says

Anxiety and disphoria.

Each of the anecdotes quoted above illustrates a widely documented change in recent decades, yet another tragic consequence of the "war on drugs." Due to the crackdown on growers and smugglers, cannabis growers have been selecting to maximize THC. It's like during Prohibition, people couldn't find beer, only whiskey. Unfortunately the higher THC content increases the risk of paranoia and even schizophrenia in susceptible persons. From a baseline risk of 1% generally, the risk of schizophrenia can increase to 2%-4% among heavy users of cannabis with high THC content. It's tragic and unnecessary. Someday hopefully enough people will figure out that the "war on drugs" is yet another scam brought to you by lobbyists and their paid henchmen in government, in this case the prison-industrial complex that makes $$$ and power from incarcerating millions of people (more prisoners in "the land of the free" than almost any other country). Better to find a source of old-fashioned, organic, ordinary cannabis, with natural levels of THC, until the war is over.

or, I dunno, just stay clean and sober and on the right side of the law! Maybe that'll work?? ... I know, I know, that's just plain silly in the eyes of the common lib.

Can some one translate the translation above. It makes no sense at all.

Oxycodone has been around since 1916 and is cheap as chips Last time I bought it was at costco at $15.00 for 120. You must be thinking of Oxycontin which is a time release oxycodone and still on patent. No one is forced to buy oxycontin. You can just buy plain old oxycodone and forgo the time release. No one is forced to buy any of the new on patent drugs. There are plenty of generics . There are plenty of other cheap effective narcotic pain killers out there besides oxycodone. Morphine is powerful and dangerous so it is reserved for the most severe pain that is not controlled by lessor drugs. Many people don't tolerate it well, sometimes fatally. You can get it but usually only through a pain management specialist. Thats fair. If you are in so much agonizing pain you actually need morphine outside of a hospital then you should be seeing a pain management specialist anyway. If you aren't in agonizing pain why fool around with something as dangerous as morphine at all?

Bap33 says

or, I dunno, just stay clean and sober and on the right side of the law! Maybe that'll work?? ... I know, I know, that's just plain silly in the eyes of the common lib.

If the law forbid going to church, would you still advocate "staying on the right side of the law"? If a law is unjust there is no wrong in violating it.

Harriet Tubman was a criminal. It was illegal to help slaves escape. Never confuse legality with morality.

Tolerating unjust laws, even those that do not affect you personally, is worse than "just plain silly". I'm clean and sober, but I find it appalling that people are thrown in cages just to make profits for the prison industry. But if that doesn't upset you, think about it this way. It's the state giving free housing and health care using your tax dollars. At least be upset that the prison industry is freeloading off of your taxes.

bob2356 says

You must be thinking of Oxycontin which is a time release oxycodone and still on patent... You can just buy plain old oxycodone and forgo the time release. No one is forced to buy any of the new on patent drugs.. You can get [morphine] but usually only through a pain management specialist. Thats fair

Thanks for the correction regarding Oxycontin v oxycodone, but the rest of your post reflects the fact that (a) you are human so you tend do resolve cognitive dissonance in a way that rationalizes your self-interest and (b) half your community income is derived from the medical industrial complex. Yes people are required to pay PhRMA, it's part of everything from Medicare to ObamneyCare. No you can't just buy what you want in this country, you need to buy permission first from someone licensed, for example your spouse. No it isn't fair to people who are in pain that they are used as hostages with ransom paid to the medical industrial complex. You've been away lately but a big deal in the US now is the mandatory coverage for "preventive care" with no copay which means PhRMA is rolling out new patented contraceptives with hardly any testing, because it's more profitable than the old familiar Pill that went generic years ago; everyone is forced to pay PhRMA for the new patented ones, and the prescribers are coerced into prescribing them, and the patients who take them will discover the currently unknown side effects as they arise. No one ever said the law is fair, except you did just now and really I think it's because of the cognitive dissonance that would result from admitting you profit personally from an unfair law. It's profitable, not fair.

BTW on a mostly unrelated note I owe you an apology for one of the statistics on CT scans and pediatric leukemia, which I remember seeing but could not find. I should have simply dropped the number ("doubled") even though I had seen it, because in any event it became a forest vs trees issue. The bottom line is, (a) radiation causes cancer, (b) unnecessary radiation causes unnecessary cancer, (c) the medical industrial complex is marketing unnecessary radiation including CT scans for asymptomatic patients as "preventive care", (d) this causes unnecessary cancer. That's the forest, i.e. the larger point. If you start to argue individual trees like incidence of childhood leukemia five years ago, you end up getting lost in all the other things affecting those aggregate statistics, e.g. progress on environmental protection can be offset by increased radiation resulting in the same level of cancer overall even though the specific mix of risk factors changes. Instead of going back and forth about aggregate numbers, I should have simply stuck to the undisputed facts (a)-(d) above.

So you would rather have drunk drivers out running people over...
Your moral compass is askew...

Dan8267 says

I'm clean and sober, but I find it appalling that people are thrown in cages just to make profits for the prison industry.

SoftShell says

you would rather have drunk drivers out running people over.

He didn't say anything like that. That is an unfair mischaracterization of what he said and you should withdraw it. Driver's licenses can be revoked, and eventually we should have autonomous cars anyway.

SoftShell says

So you would rather have drunk drivers out running people over...
Your moral compass is askew..

1. Marijuana is not alcohol.
2. Alcohol is legal.
3. Just because a drug is legal, doesn't mean driving a vehicle while high or drunk is legal.
4. The solution to drunk driving and all the other problems with driving is to ban the automobile and replace it with personal mag-lift vehicles running on smart highways.

My moral compass is fine. It's your brain that's not working.

Oh, and here's your empty chair award for making a Straw Man argument. Enjoy!