Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama administration urges Supreme Court to dismiss suit brought by anti-Bush demonstrators [View all]FSogol
(45,484 posts)94. Should I go back in time and change what I wrote 9 hours ago?
Go ahead and pile on, I really don't care.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
107 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Obama administration urges Supreme Court to dismiss suit brought by anti-Bush demonstrators [View all]
n2doc
Mar 2014
OP
Telling it like it is in a radically right-wing-controlled society featuring a radically
indepat
Mar 2014
#65
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
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
how about Nina Totenberg, dear? because NPR did a long piece about this dogshit casez
cali
Mar 2014
#89
The same thing I said before: using wsws.org as a source on a so-called "Democratic" website sucks.
FSogol
Mar 2014
#96
Follow the lead of the poster above who attacks the source rather than the content
n2doc
Mar 2014
#11
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
Right here "backed by the administration of President Barack Obama, had appealed that ruling."
Jesus Malverde
Mar 2014
#30
Constantly repeating your denials doesn't make them legit. You are ignoring the facts
cui bono
Mar 2014
#92
This is how you are supposed to proceed. You are supposed to attack the source!!
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#25
No...the Obama administration is defending the two Secret Service agents who appealed. WsWS sucks,
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#39
No...the constitutional issue won't be reached if qualified immunity is found. That's what makes
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#43
No....they are not 'competing.' This is basic legal procedure you learn on the first
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#46
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
Well, we have to "look forward", whistle a happy tune, and think beautiful thoughts.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#28
Unrec for a shitty source that ineptly describes the legal issues at hand. Here's the link to the
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#36
I'm always suspicious when agenda driven reporting doesn't give a link to the primary source...and
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#40
Bias against the favorite source of banned troll of Hannah Bell? You Better Believe It! nt
msanthrope
Mar 2014
#47
What would the reaction be here if the Secret Service re-routed President Obama away from Tea Party
onenote
Mar 2014
#48
^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
I understand the legal rhetoric being used to undermine the First Amendment here.
Maedhros
Mar 2014
#69
wsws edited the actual exchange between plaintiff's counsel, Roberts, and Scalia
onenote
Mar 2014
#81
+1. About DU: "Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter"
Catherina
Mar 2014
#74