Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
first you went the anecdotal evidence route (FAIL)Im sorry that you are too retarded to understand that speaking about democrats and poverty actually do have someting to do with the original post, or that I was not the one to change the subject.off-topic much? First you present anecdotal evidence (FAIL) then you change the topic (FAIL)Unable to look up the correlation between democrat cities and poverty/crime?anecdotal evidence much? New to msg board debating I see.Ive done well through my financial institutions, I dont see the destitution that you claim.watch the clip. Where Primerica and other vulture financial institutions go, destitution follows:
Sen Warren rips GOP hen pecked witness Video C-SPAN.org
I do however see massive destitution in places that are run by and occupied by democrats.
new to the internet I see.
Stop wasting my time kiddo.
perhaps a course in comprehension would be of value to you when you reach high school?
Dont get upset, Im only trying to help you out here, who knows, one day you could end up with some self respect and become a conservative.
Agreed. He/its a rw n00b w/ an agenda that runs away from facts. That much is clear.You didn't watch the clip, did you?all the more reason she should follow it instead of making it up to suit her needs or desires.Senator Warren taught Law at Harvard. She knows the law.So Warren has a problem with legal activities...
Must be because that concept is so foreign to Democrats....
Watch it and stop projecting.
Then explain this...Senator Warren taught Law at Harvard. She knows the law.So Warren has a problem with legal activities...
Must be because that concept is so foreign to Democrats....
What happened to fiduciary duty?She knows it's legal.
It's really a matter of whether or not it is wrong. He does not make that call.
attacking the messenger FAIL.Then explain this...Senator Warren taught Law at Harvard. She knows the law.So Warren has a problem with legal activities...
Must be because that concept is so foreign to Democrats....
Elizabeth Warren s law license problem
The debate last Thursday night between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren covered ground mostly known to voters.
But there was one subject most people watching probably did not know about, Elizabeth Warren’s private legal representation of The Travelers Insurance Company in an asbestos-related case.
Brown brought the point up late in the debate, and hammered it:
Warren attempted to deny her role, and referred to a Boston Globe article, but the Globe articlesupports Brown’s account. The Globe article indicated the representation was for a period of three years and Warren was paid $212,000. The case resulted in a Supreme Court victory for Travelers arising out of a bankruptcy case in New York.
Whatever the political implications of the exchange, Warren’s representation of Travelers raises another big potential problem for Warren.
Warren represented not just Travelers, but numerous other companies starting in the late 1990s working out of and using her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, which she listed as her office of record on briefs filed with various courts. Warren, however, never has been licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.
As detailed below, there are at least two provisions of Massachusetts law Warren may have violated. First, on a regular and continuing basis she used her Cambridge office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts. Second, in addition to operating an office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts, Warren actually practiced law in Massachusetts without being licensed.
Warren refused to disclose the full extent of her private law practice when asked by The Boston Globe. If Warren denies that she has practiced law in Massachusetts without a license, Warren should disclose the full extent of her private law practice. The public has a right to assess whether Warren has failed to comply with the most basic requirement imposed on others, the need to become a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in order to practice law in and from Massachusetts.
1. Warren Is Not Licensed To Practice Law In Massachusetts
Warren is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. Warren’s name does not turn up on a search of the Board of Bar Overseersattorney search website (searches just by last name or using Elizabeth Herring also do not turn up any relevant entries).
I confirmed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers by telephone that Warren never has been admitted to practice in Massachusetts. I had two conversations with the person responsible for verifying attorney status. In the first conversation the person indicated she did not see any entry for Warren in the computer database, but she wanted to double check. I spoke with her again several hours later, and she indicated she had checked their files and also had spoken with another person in the office, and there was no record of Warren ever having been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.
Warren’s own listing of her Bar admissions is consistent with not being licensed in Massachusetts. In a June 25, 2008 CV Warren listed only Texas and New Jersey.
so you really are new at the way these things work?first you went the anecdotal evidence route (FAIL)Im sorry that you are too retarded to understand that speaking about democrats and poverty actually do have someting to do with the original post, or that I was not the one to change the subject.off-topic much? First you present anecdotal evidence (FAIL) then you change the topic (FAIL)Unable to look up the correlation between democrat cities and poverty/crime?anecdotal evidence much? New to msg board debating I see.Ive done well through my financial institutions, I dont see the destitution that you claim.
I do however see massive destitution in places that are run by and occupied by democrats.
new to the internet I see.
Stop wasting my time kiddo.
perhaps a course in comprehension would be of value to you when you reach high school?
Dont get upset, Im only trying to help you out here, who knows, one day you could end up with some self respect and become a conservative.
then
you went the off-topic/deflection route (FAIL)
now
Now you are going the ad hom route (FAIL)
Three strikes and you're out n00b
Learn how to debate before flooding my threads w/ nonsense.
BTW- can I have back all my time you wasted mkay? Thanks
n00bs
you watch the testimony? Didn't think so. Clear off the thread deflection boiDot com
Just pointing out that she isn't much of a lawyer if she doesn't even know it's illegal to practice law without a license... That pretty much makes her other opinions questionable, at best........
she is a piece of shit, nothing she says now or ever has said is of substance.attacking the messenger FAIL.Then explain this...Senator Warren taught Law at Harvard. She knows the law.So Warren has a problem with legal activities...
Must be because that concept is so foreign to Democrats....
Elizabeth Warren s law license problem
The debate last Thursday night between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren covered ground mostly known to voters.
But there was one subject most people watching probably did not know about, Elizabeth Warren’s private legal representation of The Travelers Insurance Company in an asbestos-related case.
Brown brought the point up late in the debate, and hammered it:
Warren attempted to deny her role, and referred to a Boston Globe article, but the Globe articlesupports Brown’s account. The Globe article indicated the representation was for a period of three years and Warren was paid $212,000. The case resulted in a Supreme Court victory for Travelers arising out of a bankruptcy case in New York.
Whatever the political implications of the exchange, Warren’s representation of Travelers raises another big potential problem for Warren.
Warren represented not just Travelers, but numerous other companies starting in the late 1990s working out of and using her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, which she listed as her office of record on briefs filed with various courts. Warren, however, never has been licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.
As detailed below, there are at least two provisions of Massachusetts law Warren may have violated. First, on a regular and continuing basis she used her Cambridge office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts. Second, in addition to operating an office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts, Warren actually practiced law in Massachusetts without being licensed.
Warren refused to disclose the full extent of her private law practice when asked by The Boston Globe. If Warren denies that she has practiced law in Massachusetts without a license, Warren should disclose the full extent of her private law practice. The public has a right to assess whether Warren has failed to comply with the most basic requirement imposed on others, the need to become a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in order to practice law in and from Massachusetts.
1. Warren Is Not Licensed To Practice Law In Massachusetts
Warren is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. Warren’s name does not turn up on a search of the Board of Bar Overseersattorney search website (searches just by last name or using Elizabeth Herring also do not turn up any relevant entries).
I confirmed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers by telephone that Warren never has been admitted to practice in Massachusetts. I had two conversations with the person responsible for verifying attorney status. In the first conversation the person indicated she did not see any entry for Warren in the computer database, but she wanted to double check. I spoke with her again several hours later, and she indicated she had checked their files and also had spoken with another person in the office, and there was no record of Warren ever having been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.
Warren’s own listing of her Bar admissions is consistent with not being licensed in Massachusetts. In a June 25, 2008 CV Warren listed only Texas and New Jersey.
CAN YOU DISPUTE ANYTHING SHE SAID IN THE COMMITTEE HEARING SHIT STAIN?!!!
Otherwise, stop flooding the thread w/ your deflection nonsense
The law says what the law says, and it clearly says that what the witness did was legal.....you watch the testimony? Didn't think so. Clear off the thread deflection boiDot com
Just pointing out that she isn't much of a lawyer if she doesn't even know it's illegal to practice law without a license... That pretty much makes her other opinions questionable, at best........
If you didn't understand her argument, you're really not very bright.Let me see, it's legal, but it's wrong.
Hmmkay
If you dont understand that what she has a problem with is legal, then you might not be too bright.If you didn't understand her argument, you're really not very bright.Let me see, it's legal, but it's wrong.
Hmmkay
a long-winded opinion laced w/ ad homsshe is a piece of shit, nothing she says now or ever has said is of substance.attacking the messenger FAIL.Then explain this...Senator Warren taught Law at Harvard. She knows the law.So Warren has a problem with legal activities...
Must be because that concept is so foreign to Democrats....
Elizabeth Warren s law license problem
The debate last Thursday night between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren covered ground mostly known to voters.
But there was one subject most people watching probably did not know about, Elizabeth Warren’s private legal representation of The Travelers Insurance Company in an asbestos-related case.
Brown brought the point up late in the debate, and hammered it:
Warren attempted to deny her role, and referred to a Boston Globe article, but the Globe articlesupports Brown’s account. The Globe article indicated the representation was for a period of three years and Warren was paid $212,000. The case resulted in a Supreme Court victory for Travelers arising out of a bankruptcy case in New York.
Whatever the political implications of the exchange, Warren’s representation of Travelers raises another big potential problem for Warren.
Warren represented not just Travelers, but numerous other companies starting in the late 1990s working out of and using her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, which she listed as her office of record on briefs filed with various courts. Warren, however, never has been licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.
As detailed below, there are at least two provisions of Massachusetts law Warren may have violated. First, on a regular and continuing basis she used her Cambridge office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts. Second, in addition to operating an office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts, Warren actually practiced law in Massachusetts without being licensed.
Warren refused to disclose the full extent of her private law practice when asked by The Boston Globe. If Warren denies that she has practiced law in Massachusetts without a license, Warren should disclose the full extent of her private law practice. The public has a right to assess whether Warren has failed to comply with the most basic requirement imposed on others, the need to become a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in order to practice law in and from Massachusetts.
1. Warren Is Not Licensed To Practice Law In Massachusetts
Warren is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. Warren’s name does not turn up on a search of the Board of Bar Overseersattorney search website (searches just by last name or using Elizabeth Herring also do not turn up any relevant entries).
I confirmed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers by telephone that Warren never has been admitted to practice in Massachusetts. I had two conversations with the person responsible for verifying attorney status. In the first conversation the person indicated she did not see any entry for Warren in the computer database, but she wanted to double check. I spoke with her again several hours later, and she indicated she had checked their files and also had spoken with another person in the office, and there was no record of Warren ever having been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.
Warren’s own listing of her Bar admissions is consistent with not being licensed in Massachusetts. In a June 25, 2008 CV Warren listed only Texas and New Jersey.
CAN YOU DISPUTE ANYTHING SHE SAID IN THE COMMITTEE HEARING SHIT STAIN?!!!
Otherwise, stop flooding the thread w/ your deflection nonsense
one day you might understand that.
Go back and try to figure out why people might want to re-align their portfolio at a certain point in their life.
On one have a chance of losing your money that you could leave your family, on the other its a certain loss.
Warren doesnt care about the individuals, she cares about what the government can take to redistribute later.
Although, I have a feeling that you just might be one of those that think you deserve something that someone else worked for and thus, this whole thing is over your head.
Nobody did anything illegal here, and Warren as usual is out of line.
Until you can understand the basics, I would suggest you not post any new threads.
Ignore is what I do when I cant win an argument. Move on child, move on.a long-winded opinion laced w/ ad homsshe is a piece of shit, nothing she says now or ever has said is of substance.attacking the messenger FAIL.Then explain this...Senator Warren taught Law at Harvard. She knows the law.So Warren has a problem with legal activities...
Must be because that concept is so foreign to Democrats....
Elizabeth Warren s law license problem
The debate last Thursday night between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren covered ground mostly known to voters.
But there was one subject most people watching probably did not know about, Elizabeth Warren’s private legal representation of The Travelers Insurance Company in an asbestos-related case.
Brown brought the point up late in the debate, and hammered it:
Warren attempted to deny her role, and referred to a Boston Globe article, but the Globe articlesupports Brown’s account. The Globe article indicated the representation was for a period of three years and Warren was paid $212,000. The case resulted in a Supreme Court victory for Travelers arising out of a bankruptcy case in New York.
Whatever the political implications of the exchange, Warren’s representation of Travelers raises another big potential problem for Warren.
Warren represented not just Travelers, but numerous other companies starting in the late 1990s working out of and using her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, which she listed as her office of record on briefs filed with various courts. Warren, however, never has been licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.
As detailed below, there are at least two provisions of Massachusetts law Warren may have violated. First, on a regular and continuing basis she used her Cambridge office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts. Second, in addition to operating an office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts, Warren actually practiced law in Massachusetts without being licensed.
Warren refused to disclose the full extent of her private law practice when asked by The Boston Globe. If Warren denies that she has practiced law in Massachusetts without a license, Warren should disclose the full extent of her private law practice. The public has a right to assess whether Warren has failed to comply with the most basic requirement imposed on others, the need to become a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in order to practice law in and from Massachusetts.
1. Warren Is Not Licensed To Practice Law In Massachusetts
Warren is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. Warren’s name does not turn up on a search of the Board of Bar Overseersattorney search website (searches just by last name or using Elizabeth Herring also do not turn up any relevant entries).
I confirmed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers by telephone that Warren never has been admitted to practice in Massachusetts. I had two conversations with the person responsible for verifying attorney status. In the first conversation the person indicated she did not see any entry for Warren in the computer database, but she wanted to double check. I spoke with her again several hours later, and she indicated she had checked their files and also had spoken with another person in the office, and there was no record of Warren ever having been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.
Warren’s own listing of her Bar admissions is consistent with not being licensed in Massachusetts. In a June 25, 2008 CV Warren listed only Texas and New Jersey.
CAN YOU DISPUTE ANYTHING SHE SAID IN THE COMMITTEE HEARING SHIT STAIN?!!!
Otherwise, stop flooding the thread w/ your deflection nonsense
one day you might understand that.
Go back and try to figure out why people might want to re-align their portfolio at a certain point in their life.
On one have a chance of losing your money that you could leave your family, on the other its a certain loss.
Warren doesnt care about the individuals, she cares about what the government can take to redistribute later.
Although, I have a feeling that you just might be one of those that think you deserve something that someone else worked for and thus, this whole thing is over your head.
Nobody did anything illegal here, and Warren as usual is out of line.
Until you can understand the basics, I would suggest you not post any new threads.
Congrats n00b You made my ignore list
Means I won't see your posts.
