Debate:Michelle Obama's shoes

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by RobS.

Were Michelle Obama's shoes too expensive or is Rob an nut?

Or the Michelle Obama $540 Shoes Award. This incident is enshrined for posterity. [1] RobS 01:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Errr Rob, I wouldn't be too proud of one of Kens "articles" Ace^McWicked 01:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, that sour grapes screed reads more like Ken's jealous that a lady to worked her buns off to get where she is has a pair of fancy Lanvin sneaks when he's been wearing the same pair of fetid Chuck Taylors for the last five years. 01:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What is she a partner in a law firm? She would earn what 1, 2 million a year? She would get more than Obama and he is the president. I pretty much agree with Nutty, most the people who complain that she is rich wouldn't put the work in to get that rich themselves. - π 01:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what the fuck? What was she supposed to wear? Was she supposed to be dressed as a bum? What did Sarah Palin wear when she was out campaigning/ What about McCain's wife? What a fucking pile of tripe. Ace^McWicked 01:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

$540 is more than two and a half times the monthly food stamp alottment for the poor, downtrodden, oppressed homeless she purported or pretended to be concerned about. And the rumor is she is a disbarred attorney for, of all things--medical insurance fraud. RobS 01:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rumor has it RobS is responsible for the JFK assassination. Hey, this game is fun! --Kels 01:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rumours Rob? really? Anyway, so what was she supposed to wear? What would of McCain's wife worn? Ace^McWicked 01:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rumour has it RobSmith wares women's underwear. Hey this is easy. - π 01:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Where was Condoleeza Rice when New Orleans was drowning? Cripes Rob. You want the first lady to wear mukluks, or whatever they're called? Although I'd like to see her in a nice pair of Doc Martens... or perhaps thigh-high spiked heels... ħuman 02:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob - why you think you have any insight into what this woman actually believes based on some conclusion you drew from the price of her shoes is beyond me. What conclusion do you draw from her wearing J. Crew clothing at several campaign events? As for the disbarment, I am aware that she hasn't maintained an Illinois law license since 1993, but I would like to see you substantiate your reference to a rumor that she was disbarred where the Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission has no record of any discipline of Michell Obama. What a very interesting glimpse into your thought processes. 02:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The shoes speak for themselves. As to the rumors (not my thought processes) the question is asked point blank at Yahoo Answers. Disbarment proceedings are confidential. She voluntarily did not renew her license. Case closed. RobS 03:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, that is extremely unconvincing evidence. - π 03:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it evidence at all. First, I can't hear the shoes. Second, As an Illinois attorney and a witness in another lawyer's discipline proceeding, I can assure you that if you look at the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and the ARDC website you'll see that disbarment proceedings are conducted before the Illinois Supreme Court and are not confidential. Certain preliminary matters are, but once the ARDC issues a charge, everything after that is a matter of public record unless a protective order is entered. There is no record of any ARDC charge against Michelle Obama. Have a look for yourself and compare her public record with that of an attorney who actually did have a charge or several filed against him.So the case is absolutely not closed. People, particularly those whose career paths change, decide not to renew their licenses for any number of reasons. 03:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Yes, certain preliminary matters are confidential, like discovery of evidence. If the evidence is damning, the accused attorney can decide not to fight the allegations, avoid a full hearing, and voluntarily surrender thier license by not renewing it (as a former Wikipedia ArbCom chairman did [2]). A court has ordered her license not to be renewed until a ruling is made by IARDC. So the case is absolutley not closed, although a full disposition before the IARDC anytime soon is not likely. RobS 19:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob, what you're saying is categorically false. No court entered any order at all regarding Michelle Obama's law license. Show me what you're looking at and I'll help you understand it because I can tell looking at the ARDC website and that Yahoo Questions page at the same time is confusing you. She voluntarily didn't renew. Lots of people do that. 19:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Lot's of people do, including WP ArbCom Chairman [3] & former member of a KGB front organization, [4] Mr. Fred Bauder. [5] No court ordered any order at all regarding Michelle Obama's law license? Where do you get your information from, WorldNetDaily? (P.S. Eddie Vrdolyak was disbarred? head of the Cook County Regular Democrats? We forgot to mention Vrdolyak in the section about how Obama and the CPUSA hijacked the Democratic Party in cp:Barack_Obama#Leads_effort_to_defeat_an_incumbant_Democratic_Senator). RobS 21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you're actually beginning to make an argument. But you should have a look for former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770. A person who went inactive prior to 1999 has a different status noted in her public ARDC record than someone who went inactive after 1999, when the rule was changed. Such a person must file a motion with the Illinois Supreme Court to regain active status. It has nothing to do with the court having entered any order with regard to that person's license. 22:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In theory, yes. But we don't know the facts of the case. RobS 22:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

<--Seriously all this shit is not finding us an award name. Ignore RobS' filibustering. Names? - π 04:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the trolling is derailing the process. 07:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Obama Dijon Mustard Award. 146.169.25.80 18:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Rob S "The shoes speak for themselves" Award. ħuman 18:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's idiocy, not arrogance. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Proverbs 6:12-13, "A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth. He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet...;" of course in the Conservative Bible Translation we'd have to take the politically correct step of making it gender neutral so as to fit Michelle Obama. RobS 01:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That we includes more of us than you, pal. 02:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Which of your heroes, Rob, walked in simple sandals, or barefoot? I challenge you on this. I go barefoot year round - yes, even in -25 dF weather - unless required to wear foot clothing (driving, going in shops, working on heavy metal, etc.). ħuman 03:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Human, been waiting with fish-bait breath for your CBT of this passage. Duty calls. Posterity demands it be exposited more fully. RobS 00:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rob, does your consuming paranoia extend past politics? For example, if you get a sandwhich, do you check it for truth serum? PS, what kind of shoes do you wear? Do they speak to you? If so, we have a great counseling center here in Denver and I can probably get your travel expenses reimbursed. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 20:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)