Skip to main content

View Diary: Murdochgate: News Corp. Hemorrhaging 1,000's of Stores from its Supermarket Ad Division (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Floorgraphics case was interstate commerce (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Creosote, ericlewis0

    Therefore under the purview of... Wait for it... The US Attorney in the District concerned.  Which would be... Oh my, that would be Chris Christie, who was given the complaint and ignored it.

    But thank you so much for implying JJ was wrong for suggesting that Christie was helping Rupert Murdoch in this case. Because getting the name of the position wrong means Christie must be completely innocent of aiding a crony instead of prosecuting business fraud and illegal hacking which led to Floorgraphics' failure and Murdoch's firm gaining a near-monopoly by illegal business practices.

    It's funny how you never play this little distraction and deflection game with Democrats, though. One would almost think you're a Republican partisan who can't quite quit Daily Kos, but that couldn't be the case.  It's just the 1,475th time you've sided with a Republican but that's completely coincidental! Silly of anyone to think your intentions here are dishonest and underhanded!  Why it's just a giant misunderstanding!  Just like the last one! And all those times you defended Mitt Romney's business ethics and favorable tax advantages! I don't know why anyone would think you're not being 100% honest about your presence here! Just because you go haven't supported a single Democrat by name in the many years you've been on this site doesn't mean squat!  

    The point is, Chris Christie was not the NJ Attorney General, so STFU Jacoby!

    •  madhaus - I was just stating a fact (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ericlewis0

      I made no mention at all of the case in question because I don't know anything about it and have no opinion regarding it. My comment wasn't pro or con any political party whatsoever. I was just correcting a factual mistake so that readers would know that Christie had never held statewide elected office before he ran for governor.

      I thought we were a fact based site. My comment received nine RECs and your blast at me one. It's one thing when we have differences on policy, but why the vitriol when I am just correcting a factual mistake?

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:46:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're comparing recs when I comment to you (0+ / 0-)

        In an old diary at 11 o'clock PACIFIC?  Are you for real?

        The sad thing is I think you are.  Of course you were just stating a fact, and of course it's a complete and utter coincidence that your statement of this fact leaves the impression that the OC was unfairly accusing Christie of not doing his job. Why, no one could have foreseen that your correcting the OC on a fact while not mentioning anything else at all about the case because you "don't know anything about it" would lead the casual reader to think Christie was innocent of the accusation.  One would think that you didn't understand the purpose of the US Attorney's Office at all, or that you didn't understand how many politicians use it as a launch for elected statewide leadership positions.  Wow, one would think there's a whole Atlantic Ocean of things you don't seem to understand yet make unqualified authoritative statements about them anyway.

        And no one could have foreseen that when I suggested, yet again, that it's awfully odd you're so active on this site when you have never, ever, ever supported a Democrat by name, that instead of responding with a list of all the Dems you've advocated for or donated to or diaried about or at the very least VOTED FOR in 2008 and 2012, you once more respond to a very tiny sliver of the comment and quibble about your reply being factual.

        One can be factual yet still be misleading.  Correcting someone for naming the wrong position while you're simultaneously ignoring the responsibility and function of the position being discussed is misleading.  Comparing recs received during a diary's active phase with those received in the wee hours in misleading.  Ignoring substantive concerns about your purpose on a site dedicated to "electing more and better Democrats" is extremely misleading.

        I don't think asking someone to explain why s/he only pushes Republican and Conservative memes on a Democratic site is vitriolic. I look forward to your next factual response addressing this jarring misalignment of your values with this site's purpose, and why you should be completely excused from any criticism for it.

        •  The diary author gave a REC to both my comments (0+ / 0-)

          Someone likes facts and likely sees this dustup as having nothing whatsoever to do the with diary topic.

          I don't have to defend my writing to you or anyone else. I have been here for six years and have written nearly 25,000 comments. I have people who follow me who find what I write interesting and a handful of critics, including you. And that's fine except my critics seem to either cherry pick my comments or like in this instance create an entire story around my motives which are a complete fantasy. Lot's of my comments are just correcting factual mistakes, with no opinion intended at all. Like all unedited blog sites people here at DKOS constantly write material that is factually incorrect. When I am reading through a diary, or comment, and see something that is incorrect I'll ask a question or correct the mistake as in this case, and I think many here appreciate that.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:55:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Eric recommended my comment as well (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            Which suggests he appreciates people commenting in his diary, independent of whether he agrees with the commenter.  He's probably looking at our usernames and saing to himself "If madhaus were in Animal Nuz, what kind of animal would she be?"

            You repeatedly confuse quantity with intent.  For all we know you could be a paid-by-the-post troll hired by a KochBros wingnut welfare warbase to post intelligent yet subversive comments that skew conservative.  Your refusal to explain your purpose here leaves me little choice but rampant speculation as to your ulterior motives.

            After all, you know why you're here and I know why I'm here.  Yet my political opinions arent wildly out of skew with the site's stated purpose, so those who disagree with me would question my reasoning, tone, or tactics, not whether I belong here in the first place, or whether I'm actually here to undermine the good work done by others.

            Why you wouldn't honestly own up to your reason for posting conservative memes to a liberal site doesn't speak well of your motives.  But keep sharing those facts with us!  You never know, maybe one of them might even skew 51% Democratic if we ignore the red wrapper your facts always seem to come in. There's always hope!

            •  There is always hope! (0+ / 0-)

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:34:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And once more the kitchen gets too hit for you (0+ / 0-)

                Think about that fact.

                  •  I don't comment much about actual races (0+ / 0-)

                    and candidates, but more on policy issues. Public policy is the area that interests me and why I blog here.

                    The whole Romney/Private Equity thing was largely a communications issue of which I did a very poor job understanding what others were writing about. I kept thinking they were writing about the Bain Capital investment partnerships and people were intending to mean Bain Capital, the management company. While they often used the wrong terms I should have clarified my comments better. While I have never worked at a PE firm, on behalf of a former employer I was a limited partner in several so I have more understanding than most here at DKOS about how PE actually works. I have also been a General Partner of investment partnerships in other areas (not PE) and how all of these investment partnerships work is very common. Nearly every diary, and many comments, about Bain Capital had factual errors and I was hoping to be a source of information, but it came across to most as advocacy. I did a poor job. I do have experience in areas that are relatively uncommon here such as serving on public company boards of directors, actually recruiting and negotiating compensation for CEOs and other senior executive, chairing public company compensation and audit committees, and being a professional investor. I have a solid background in tax, although we have a handful of people here who are expert practitioners and I am not in their league. However, with the exception of our few experts much of what is written here about tax have glaring errors of fact. This allows me to bring some real world experience, and context, to the discussion of certain issues. I am glad the election is over, and Romney lost, and many of the issues in the campaign have moved off the pages of DKOS.

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:10:23 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I really do appreciate it when Kogs share their (0+ / 0-)

                      expertise here.  Really.  I do.

                      But I don't think this is limited to your repeated inability to discern, over dozens and dozens and DOZENS of diaries that many people were upset over how Bain Capital made money for its partners as opposed to its investors.  In order for your story to be true, you were simultaneously this big, swinging d--k (see Liar's Poker) who knew the world of PE and everyone else was an idiot who got basic facts wrong, yet you were too thick to recognize that an investment company could use The Producers as a business model.

                      Here's another firm in a completely different field who found a way to do that.  

                      So how can this be?  You're deeply steeped in a rarified world where few know the ins and out or the lingo, yet almost everyone at this site can understand a concept that was so completely beyond you?  Realistically, isn't it far more likely that you played the naif rather than that someone as brilliant as you really was that stupid?

                      This site has a very short and easy to understand mission statement.  Ducking the question of which candidates you support on this site just makes you look like you have something really awful to hide.  

                      And this is not the first time you've avoided very direct questions about your politics.  If you declined to discuss your politics on an investment board or a fishing forum that would be completely understandable, but DK is explicitly a political site.   Furthermore, you don't stay in the Pootie and Music and Books corners.  You're in all the news threads. This is the equivalent of posting on an investment board, advocating strongly and repeatedly for various monetary policies that would affect bond prices, and then flat out refusing to say whether you were long or short on them or what mix your preferred.

                      And given what you've shared about your career experience, it seems you've spent a lot of time working closely with not just the 1%, but the .01%.  That could seriously skew your sense of what's right, what's fair, or what's appropriate when setting policy for an entire country.  And once more, by repeatedly sweeping your politics under the rug, your behavior suggests not merely acknowledgement that you're not among landsmen, but guilt.  After all, your politics must be so abhorrent to the typical DK reader you dare not share them.  Ever.

                      These are some of the many reasons why I have my doubts as to why you're really posting here.  

                      •  madhause - I have been a Democrat since (0+ / 0-)

                        I was eight years old and handing our flyers for my uncle who was running for state legislature in the Democratic primary where the Dem primary winner was a lock. My Dad was a blue collar Depression era high school dropout, my Mom worked at the local Sears store in the back office. I grew up in a fourth floor walk up. My family has always been solid Democrat and so have I. I am much more of a JFK Democrat than a Teddy Kennedy Democrat, but being a Democrat here is essentially a given. I am very liberal on social issues, and more free market on economic issues. I live in a very Democratic area where essentially all the public office holders are Dems. I tend to view politics more from the perspective of a political scientist than an advocate.

                        I feel badly about the Bain dialogue I could have done a much better job of helping people put information into a much more accurate context.  There was so much misinformation that I would just start writing and should have given it much more thought. But that is water under the bridge. My guess is that no major political party will run an investor, or big company CEO, for national office or even most state wide offices for the foreseeable future.

                        Mostly, I do have fun here and I learn things and there is a growing group of people who seem to appreciate my contribution.

                        "let's talk about that"

                        by VClib on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 09:29:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes, you've given your history before (0+ / 0-)

                          And I believe you when you talked about that.  I even believe that you feel badly how the Bain stuff went, and I know what it's like when trying to correct amateur misunderstandings but fail to do so because they're in such a different place than you.

                          Fact remains, you duck a lot of direct questions.  On a politics site.  About your politics.

                          You didn't say who you voted for.  You said who people voted for where you lived.  More ducking.  Do you even realize how much you do this, or do you think you're being so clever trying to sneak this past me?  

                          I would appreciate your contributions, given that you do have a background few people here have, if I didn't have the overwhelming sense you are hiding something and are here to subvert the discussion.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site