Barack Obama "The Rock Star Legal Professor" is a Total Fraud

But it is you jeff who twist the truth at every turn, twist and turn... I never said Obama lost his license, I said lost or surrendered. Stop putting words in my mouth, will yea?

As for the reasons, well... a "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore" and forget to renew your license. A "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.

 

Absolute bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Dutch caught in one false implication attempts to cover it up by fabricating another.

 

Some of them are leeching off the system.

Some probably see themselves that way.

Romney is losing because he has the personality of cardboard. Some might say I should concentrate on his policies as opposed to his personality but the phony-bologna image he is putting out to the American people is indicative of some kind of character flaw in my opinion. I refuse to support someone who won't make a passionate argument for capitalism. Romney should present the "Friedman Plan" or something and push it aggressively. Stop being such a wishy-washy little panderer and FIGHT for capitalism!!!

 

Did not like it much, did yea?

You find me a valid common reason for voluntarily surrendering a law license, especially when you're young and bright and not 80-year old fart, and we can discuss.

 

Sure. You become president of the United States, have no need for a law license, probably will never practices law again, and don't want have to take the continuing education courses necessary to keep your license current.

That thought didn't enter your mind, eh?

What to make up anything else while you're at it?

 

When did Obama "retire" his law license? Was it before or after he became the fixture of the White House? Look it up.

Here's a more plausible reason to retire your prestigious Harvard Law License. If you want to avoid a hearing on whatever issue, the matter will not be raised publicly if you go inactive or retire. It is all informal. You are allowed to depart gracefully. No hard feelings. There is still hope. And there surely has been change.

 

OK, I'll play.

First, what the hell is a "Harvard law license"?

Second, let's see your source that says "If you want to avoid a hearing on whatever issue, the matter will not be raised publicly if you go inactive or retire." That is certainly news to me and completely contrary to everything I understand about ethical violations investigations, which are matters of public record and published in Supreme Court opinions.

Third, what "issue" do you contend Obama had that in your fertile imagination led himto surrender his license.

 

OK. I looked it up as you asked.

Q: Did Barack and Michelle Obama “surrender” their law licenses to avoid ethics charges?

A: 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.

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

It is not true that either of them surrendered their law license to avoid disciplinary action or criminal prosecution, however. Nor is it true, contrary to what has been claimed on literally thousands of anti-Obama blogs and websites, that the Obamas were "disbarred" or had their law licenses "revoked."
Neither the Illinois State Bar Association nor the ARDC lists any accusations of misconduct or disciplinary actions against the Obamas. According to a statement quoted by FactCheck.org, ARDC deputy administrator and chief counsel James Grogan says the Obamas were "never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings."

Quite to the contrary, a notice on the website of the Illinois State Bar states that the Association is "proud" to have Barack and Michelle Obama as honorary members.


http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/Obama-Law-License.htm

Item: Michelle Obama lost her law license.
False. She currently has an inactive law license.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreil...-myth-regarding-president-obama#ixzz278LlOXce

Claim: Barack and Michelle Obama both surrendered their law licenses for questionable reasons.

o FALSE

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

Claim #13: Michelle Obama’s law license. It’s simply not true that the first lady “can no longer practice law as an attorney.” She could resume the practice of law any time she chooses. Both the president and his wife have voluntarily inactivated their Illinois law licenses, thereby avoiding a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees, which is common for lawyers no longer actively practicing.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

+++

I said this in another thread, and it is just as true here.

This is the beauty of propaganda, and why it is so heavily used by right wing propaganda sources.

Even though the lies and fabrications about the Obamas' law licenses have been debunked and disproven, the propagandists can count on the gullible or evil to re-spread the lies and distortions again and again, just like this post by Dutch.

Propaganda works, and we should be ever vigilant against it, and not gullibly believe everything we read.

Thank you Dutch, for demonstrating that once again, if this thread on its own wasn't evidence enough.

 

Note: My comment as to ethical rules investigations pertains to the Florida Bar. I don't know what other bars do, but I've never heard that you can avoid an ethical investigation and keep it from being public by surrendering your license.

 

Like all the anti-Obama propagandists....when the facts don't support the smear- just make something up. Or in your case- just lie.

Lol.

 

Could you tell us why do you think the "Brilliant young man who is a Harvard Law School magna cum laude graduate,...." lost (surrendered) his law license?

No Dutch- you lied and claimed his "lost" his license- not Lost or surrendered- here let me show again

" lost (surrendered)

You lied Dutch.

and you knew the facts. It was a deliberate smear.

Parenthese used as Supplimental information: This "supplemental information" includes asides, tangents, and afterthoughts. In general, anything that can be removed from the sentence without altering its meaninghttp://www.writingsimplified.com/2009/04/how-and-when-to-use-parentheses.html

 

So, you looked it up? You should have done it before speculating Obama could have surrendered his license after he became president. According to you, in January of 2008 he already knew he'd become the president in. November! He must have a nice crystal ball indeed

Wanna look up something else? In the history of US presidency, only Bill Clinton volunteraly gave up his law license (Nixon is another matter) and we all know why he did it. Obama is another US president, and we don't know why he did it. Just like we don't know whole bunch of other things about the most transparent president in history.

 

Here is what we do know:

You lied when you claimed that Obama 'lost' his license.

Everything else is justification for extending the smear you attempted with that lie.

 

Why would he need a law license as a US Senator.

Right. You have absolutely nothing.

What a shocker.

 

Update that to present tense, please.

 

~ sniff sniff~

Denial? Disappointment?

If Obama was a "rock star" professor he was more of an Eddie Money or Milli Vanilli than anything else.
And, as with his presidency, the longer people observe Barry in action the more and more disenchanted they become and the more unpopular he became.
That's what the numbers prove.

I know. It's hard when your little idols fall from their pedestals isn't it?

 

"President Barack Obama's popularity with the public is on the upswing, according to a new Gallup poll that found him enjoying his strongest approval rating in nearly two years.

He's now seen favorably by 53% of Americans, a four-point increase since March and the best number he's seen since September 2013, when 58% of Americans viewed him favorably."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/22/politics/obama-gallup-popularity/

The last Republican president left office with an approval rating of 25% in the same (gallup) poll.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...rock-star-legal-professor-total-fraud-20.html


Now, why did you make me do that to you? Did you actually believe the numbers supported your assertion? lol

 

(Shrug) So? All that means is that the same chronic low-information voters have once again been sucking down that propaganda generated kool-aid presented to them by MSNBC and all the other leftist media outlets. Propaganda does work to a certain extent with hordes of low-information voters even in the face of counter facts and of reality itself. I thought that everyone knew that.

 

Polls don't mean a damn thing. I've never been polled in my life and know nobody that ever has. I think some are just made up and fictitious to be honest.

 

Sounds awfully similar to what I heard right wingers saying leading up to the 2012 election. The polls were dead on then.

 

The 2012 election was decided by 1 quote, carefully edited and taken out of context that magically appeared at the perfect time, through dishonest and fairly illegal methods. Sort of like recording a movie in a theater with your cell phone=)

 

And now he has been President of the United States. Elected twice. Higher approval ratings than Bush.
What's your point again?

 

The point is anyone who voted for the empty suit was stupid and still are if they support the terrorist sympathizer.

 

3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists on American soil during Bush's watch.

 

Yawwwnn