Obama's DOJ Sides with RIAA
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 10:45 UTC
Legal We always try to avoid politics like the plague here on OSNews, but sometimes, it's hard to avoid it. Take the case of Joel Tenenbaum, who could be liable for over 1 million USD if the Recording Industry Association of America gets its way. While many hoped for a change of pace when it comes to these matters, Barack Obama's Department of Justice has squarely sided with the RIAA.
E-mail Print r 6   · Read More · 65 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/gcm
Thread beginning with comment 354890
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
MollyC
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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

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.


Very well said. These tiresome, bitter right-wingers are so upset that they are now out of power, that they resort to these pathetic hit-and-run straw man attacks at any opportunity. I bet this fool copy-and-pastes his remarks on every forum he can get an account on, hoping he can make it seem remotely relevant if he just changes the first sentence.

Pillock.

Reply Parent Score: 2