Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th May 2009 08:46 UTC
Permalink for comment 362868
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 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-24
Come on "mate" - don't put words in my mouth in an attempt to make a straw man argument in order to take the conversation off on your own preferred tangent.
I pointed out the very relevant, and not particularly distant, historically verifiable *fact* of the Clinton administration's DOJ's + 19 States' antitrust actions against Intel's business partner, Microsoft. Instead of addressing that, you are trying to turn this into a Republican vs Democrat free-for-all, and I refuse to play that game. The Obama administration is not the Bush administration. The current Congress also differs from those of the previous 8 years.
Again, the DOJ of the administration which preceeded the disastrous one of 2001-2008 demonstrably acted in a way more friendly to the causes of consumers, which was the statement of cautious optimism to which you objected in your post, which I replied to. Please address the *evidence* I have presented instead of changing the subject and speaking in fashionably cynical gereralities.
Edited 2009-05-11 17:58 UTC