General Discussion

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)

85. From the Reuters link

Mon Mar 31, 2014, 05:44 PM

Mar 2014

"A federal judge in Oregon refused to dismiss the case in an October 2010 decision that was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2012. Agents Tim Wood and Rob Savage, backed by the administration of President Barack Obama, had appealed that ruling.. "

First you complain about the link. Then when you get an "approved" link you claim it doesn't say what the OP said.

Well it doesn't, in so many words. However the Administration appealing the ruling fits in with the message in the OP.

So what do you have now? Now you've been shown other links and shown where it specifically says that the Obama administration appealed the ruling.
So what's next? Surely you have something else up your sleeve to turn this into something that looks good for the administration.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama administration urges Supreme Court to dismiss suit brought by anti-Bush demonstrators [View all] n2doc Mar 2014 OP

WTF is this? Autumn Mar 2014 #1

What a world we live in. Baitball Blogger Mar 2014 #12

"More likely, they would disguise themselves as a right-wing supporter" Martin Eden Mar 2014 #52

Maybe SamKnause Mar 2014 #2

Everything not forbidden is compulsory. n/t malthaussen Mar 2014 #5

Protesting is illegal, doncha know? Scuba Mar 2014 #3

Protesting against the bushes was illegal. fasttense Mar 2014 #49

+100 SoapBox Mar 2014 #53

I hear ya. So why do you thik the Obama admin is backing Bush here? Scuba Mar 2014 #68

I wish I knew. fasttense Mar 2014 #75

The GOP are so extreme that... Rockyj Mar 2014 #79

Yes, you are right he is a moderate RepubliCON by today's standards. fasttense Apr 2014 #107

Telling it like it is in a radically right-wing-controlled society featuring a radically indepat Mar 2014 #65

And yet, Le Taz Hot Mar 2014 #4

deja vu G_j Mar 2014 #6

You Better Believe It! LOL at the WSWS link. I'll wait for the real story. FSogol Mar 2014 #7

I suppose you will have a complaint about the ACLU ink also. former9thward Mar 2014 #9

pretty clear G_j Mar 2014 #13

Ain't believin' it til I sees it on Fox. Jackpine Radical Mar 2014 #16

Those are the same secret service agents that party drunk with prostitutes? NV Whino Mar 2014 #21

+Yep. Shame, shame on... can't get fooled again. nt tridim Mar 2014 #10

So you cant refute the article and you dont have an opinion one way rhett o rick Mar 2014 #14

What about the link is incorrect? We have the real story. Whenever the Left peacefully protests sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #24

Where is it incorrect? Show me another source that shows the Obama admin asked for this to be FSogol Mar 2014 #26

The corporate media is a 'legitimate source'? Since when do you totally accept what sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #32

my favorite part of your preferred WaPo story: Enrique Mar 2014 #44

I'm unclear on your point... you seem to be implying this is a made up story.. 2banon Mar 2014 #70

Someone already showed you another source. cui bono Mar 2014 #91

Should I go back in time and change what I wrote 9 hours ago? FSogol Mar 2014 #94

Well I haven't see a post by you acknowledging it. And you kept denying it well after the first post cui bono Mar 2014 #95

I feel really bad for you. FSogol Mar 2014 #97

does Reuters count as a real story? Enrique Mar 2014 #34

it depends on what it says, obviously Warren Stupidity Mar 2014 #63

how about Nina Totenberg, dear? because NPR did a long piece about this dogshit casez cali Mar 2014 #89

The "real" story was posted in response to you. What say you now? cui bono Mar 2014 #90

The same thing I said before: using wsws.org as a source on a so-called "Democratic" website sucks. FSogol Mar 2014 #96

The ol +1, FSogol~ Cha Apr 2014 #104

But, they love what it says.. it's A-Okay! Cha Apr 2014 #102

I am confused as to how to proceed.... truebrit71 Mar 2014 #8

Follow the lead of the poster above who attacks the source rather than the content n2doc Mar 2014 #11

Surely you can find a credible piece than wsws.org? FSogol Mar 2014 #15

How about fucking REUTERS? n2doc Mar 2014 #17

You should have lead with the Reuter's link and not wsws.org crap. FSogol Mar 2014 #18

So the wsws link was correct. I have found that to be the case regarding that site more often than sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #33

So killing the messenger didn't work for you LondonReign2 Mar 2014 #76

From the Reuters link SomethingFishy Mar 2014 #85

Just read your yahoo link. No mention of the Obama admin asking for FSogol Mar 2014 #27

Right here "backed by the administration of President Barack Obama, had appealed that ruling." Jesus Malverde Mar 2014 #30

Doesn't matter what any of you post Rex Mar 2014 #78

Constantly repeating your denials doesn't make them legit. You are ignoring the facts cui bono Mar 2014 #92

Exactly. The re-education classes are working! loudsue Mar 2014 #23

This is how you are supposed to proceed. You are supposed to attack the source!! sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #25

Unfortunately for you, your liberal leanings Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #56

Here's this piece in WaPo but it doesn't mention the Obama Admin justiceischeap Mar 2014 #19

Wow, imagine that! n/t FSogol Mar 2014 #20

Here you go: sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #29

so the source which excludes that information is better? Enrique Mar 2014 #37

that shows the value of the WSWS Enrique Mar 2014 #35

No...the Obama administration is defending the two Secret Service agents who appealed. WsWS sucks, msanthrope Mar 2014 #39

WSWS more than thoroughly covers the government's argument Enrique Mar 2014 #41

No...the constitutional issue won't be reached if qualified immunity is found. That's what makes msanthrope Mar 2014 #43

they are competing Enrique Mar 2014 #45

No....they are not 'competing.' This is basic legal procedure you learn on the first msanthrope Mar 2014 #46

Besides, the way I read some of Scalia's statements justiceischeap Mar 2014 #61

Exactly..because it's an SS case, I think it makes a poor 1st amendment one. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #62

I see a post is hidden that got a little carried away with the knee jerk Obama hate.. Cha Apr 2014 #100

Post removed Post removed Mar 2014 #22

Well, we have to "look forward", whistle a happy tune, and think beautiful thoughts. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #28

Say what? Newsjock Mar 2014 #31

Excellent! I thank you and Mr. Pitt thanks you! Divernan Mar 2014 #55

LOL. bvar22 Mar 2014 #84

Yeah, these fuckers like it too.. Cha Apr 2014 #99

Unrec for a shitty source that ineptly describes the legal issues at hand. Here's the link to the msanthrope Mar 2014 #36

i wasn't aware of that standard Enrique Mar 2014 #38

I'm always suspicious when agenda driven reporting doesn't give a link to the primary source...and msanthrope Mar 2014 #40

they gave the name of the case, "Wood v. Moss" Enrique Mar 2014 #42

Bias against the favorite source of banned troll of Hannah Bell? You Better Believe It! nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #47

If you expected better on this board ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #58

What would the reaction be here if the Secret Service re-routed President Obama away from Tea Party onenote Mar 2014 #48

Rerouted the president and removed the protesters Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #60

Let no bad deed go punished. L0oniX Mar 2014 #50

Sometimes, when they make their authoritarian, bushco Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #51

Let's be clear about what is being addressed with this lawsuit. Maedhros Mar 2014 #54

^this^ Whilst others kvetch about the source ^this^ hits the nail on the head.. truebrit71 Mar 2014 #57

I remember when people were being excluded from Bush's campaign events because they wore Maedhros Mar 2014 #71

That is NOT what is being addressed with the lawsuit ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #66

I understand the legal rhetoric being used to undermine the First Amendment here. Maedhros Mar 2014 #69

Standing and Jurisdiction are more than mere "legal rhetoric." eom. 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #72

no, that is not correct Enrique Mar 2014 #77

How about you actually read the argument before the Court ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #80

wsws edited the actual exchange between plaintiff's counsel, Roberts, and Scalia onenote Mar 2014 #81

and every other story edited that WHOLE exchange out Enrique Mar 2014 #88

I guess it depends on where you choose to look onenote Apr 2014 #105

Here is a link from the tomg Mar 2014 #59

please only use reputable sources Enrique Mar 2014 #64

ROFL! truebrit71 Mar 2014 #73

+1. About DU: "Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter" Catherina Mar 2014 #74

LOL! City Lights Mar 2014 #86

Baloney.. you damn well it's RT and firedoglake. Cha Apr 2014 #101

wsws.org LOL... SidDithers Mar 2014 #67

the President does NOT urge the supreme court. eom. spanone Mar 2014 #82

His DoJ does. n/t cui bono Mar 2014 #93

K & R, bookmarked. n/t Raksha Mar 2014 #83

President Obama is all about freedom. Enthusiast Mar 2014 #87

Is Obama joining team BFEE after he leaves office? n/t PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #98

HORRIFYING: SOLICITER GENERAL DOES HIS JOB Recursion Apr 2014 #103

The Obama Adminstration backing tromping Consitutional Rights? 99Forever Apr 2014 #106