Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 10:45 UTC
Permalink for comment 354890
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-04
I could've read your post at any right-wing blog over the past 18 months, and the American people soundly rejected your "arguments".
I'm surprised that your drivel has been modded up to a 6 as I write this; I had presumed that this site's membership had progressive political leanings. I'm surprised that it's a right-wing site wrt the politics of the members.
Anyway, you totally missed (or ignored) my point (not surprising for a mindless ditto-head). My point was that A. the defendant in this case provides no compelling reason for the DOJ to interfere on his behalof; B. The DOJ has changed policy from Bush in certain areas, so there has been "change"; C. the areas where the DOJ has changed policy are those where those affected could provide compelling reason to change policies, one example being whether to federal enforce anti-marijuana laws against patients using medical marijuana in states where that is permitted (whether one agrees with this change in policy is not relevant to my point).
You ignored that and went on a right-wing anti-Obama smear attack, and got 5 right-wingers to join in on your nonsense.