Skip to main content

View Diary: Pres Obama Signs Bill Killing Anti-Corruption, Pro-Transparency STOCK Act Provisions (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's rather amusing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Woody, mrkvica, aliasalias

    Considering the only time in my dairy that the word "repeal" was used was a direct quotation from The Hill sourcing the haste with which the "repeal legislation" (their words) went through the bill process.

    Instead, I used the following terminology:

    "Killing...provisions [of STOCK Act]"

    "Stripping...powers ## "

    "Limit scope and effectiveness of ## "

    "Rolled back progress of ##"

    I was actually very explicitly not saying that the whole thing was being axed/repealed.

    I'm still developing as a writer, so I'm sensitive to reading people who are misinterpreting my writing. But I really don't see how anyone who actually read the diary could think this was about a total repeal of the law, when I wrote nothing that would indicate that and was careful to source it with credible organizations to verify what I had paraphrased or made commentary on.

    Thanks for your input though.

    Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

    by aguadito on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 07:08:15 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks! (7+ / 0-)

      The problem I have with the way you've written this is that you've  excluded quite a bit of information that could have been included.  

      It would have made the story more understandable.  

      The comments have been very helpful for me in filling in the information that you seem to have forgotten.  

      Streichholzschächtelchen

      by otto on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 07:13:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  in the past (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrkvica, aliasalias

        in diaries i've been told i write too long.

        i'm not going to waste space being unnecessarily even-handed in a "Third Way" manner by parroting administration talking points, when this story is being totally ignored in MSM and the glaring issues with it need to be discussed, not explained away by vague "national security concerns" while giving corrupt insiders a pass from public scrutiny.

        Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

        by aguadito on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 07:35:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Informing your readers of the actual (9+ / 0-)

          provisions of the bill, even just adding the block quote from tortmaster's first comment would not be "third way" it would be honoring the whole truth. Let the readers decide.

          "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

          by high uintas on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 07:57:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the actual provisions of the bill (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbastard

            including the original STOCK Act, and those that were repealed, is in the diary, sourced with credible outlets.

            maybe you're so used to getting a biased "everything is okay!" narrative that you just aren't able to recognize the balance when it's there?

            Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

            by aguadito on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:10:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What you don't know is where I stand on (6+ / 0-)

              these little meta wars that go back and forth here. Your ability to make judgements on what I may or may not be used to is interesting.

              "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

              by high uintas on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:29:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i long for the day that these distortions with an (6+ / 0-)

                agenda are no longer tolerated on this site.

                this site has become no better than redstate at times with some of the rantings that go on around here of late, imho.

                disagreement on policy is one thing, deliberate distortion and bias is another.

                hu, i'm glad you stand on integrity and honesty - sorry you had to be the target of the snide, sad comment above.

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:34:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Let's review, shall we? (0+ / 0-)

                  First, "high uintas" falsely claimed that I did not provide the information on '

                  1) the provisions of the original STOCK Act

                  2) the provisions that were repealed by this legislation

                  (he only referred to "provisions of the bill", but i'll assume it was either or both)

                  As anyone who has actually read the diary can see, I did provide that context-- for both the original bill and the bill repealing it.

                  SO who exactly is providing the distortions and the agendas?

                  What's the deliberate distortion and bias?

                  I'll tell you where, it's with people like you who, hu, and others who have made false claims in response to this diary to attempt to discredit the content which is critical of people you may find inconvenient.

                  It's really sad that clowns like this get to just blindly stumble around and issue distortions of quality content and then try and turn around and play victim when you're called out on your utter nonsense.

                  Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

                  by aguadito on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:48:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm sorry if that came off as an accusation (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Onomastic, otto, Catte Nappe, edrie, kat68

                    You said

                    i'm not going to waste space being unnecessarily even-handed in a "Third Way" manner by parroting administration talking points, when this story is being totally ignored in MSM and the glaring issues with it need to be discussed, not explained away by vague "national security concerns" while giving corrupt insiders a pass from public scrutiny.

                    I think that the whole of it is worthy of posting, it's not necessarily a waste of time. The more info you give in this the better is where I stand. People can decide for themselves. Even handedness isn't such a bad thing if it's in the interest of knowledge.

                    I did read your diary and it's clear what your slant on the news is. Others disagreed and pointed out what the nature of the hold on the data base was about. It's worth noting those disagreements with more than an accusation of administration talking points.

                    "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                    by high uintas on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:30:35 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  If you want to be a better writer (8+ / 0-)

      If that's really your goal, here's my advice: You need to listen more closely to your critics.  

      If you don't do that, then your writing won't change.  It seems like you're more interested in insulting your critics, not listening to their criticism of your writing.  

      Streichholzschächtelchen

      by otto on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 07:14:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i really don't know what i'm supposed to do (0+ / 0-)

        when someone reads my diary and thinks it's about a repeal of a law, when I never once wrote even the word "repeal"

        not all critics should be listened to with equal weight, I discount the ones who need to be discounted.

        Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

        by aguadito on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 07:36:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The credibility factor (0+ / 0-)

          You've had things pointed out to you, but you're not interested in addressing them.  

          Streichholzschächtelchen

          by otto on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:54:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  correct (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mrkvica, aliasalias

            I'm not interested in addressing them.

            if you're really interested in exploring every single exotic interest group's objection to every single legislative action, go ahead.

            the false national security issues concerns are addressed.

            the privacy issues were discussed.

            and the NAPA's report has been put in context with its other recommendations that the report made that Congress ignored. The main point in my diary has been made: this shouldn't have happened, Obama shouldn't have signed it, these secretive closed-door deals shouldn't be made without public input -- the bill wasn't even on LOC because the bill's process was literally done from Friday-Monday and it has gutted provisions that numerous consumer advocacy groups and transparency proponents have been cheering for. THAT IS NEWS, okay?

            And your comment is just another brilliant extension of this.

            "You've had "things" pointed out to you" --

            if you really were interested in a discussion you wouldn't make such a vague claim and then force me to play a guessing game of what "things" you're even referring to.,

            Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

            by aguadito on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:01:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The credibility factor (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sylv, Onomastic, Fogiv

              One thing I know to be true about writing on blogs- it's easy to get people to agree with you if they already agree with you.

              Streichholzschächtelchen

              by otto on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:06:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  heres the thing (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mrkvica

                the minute you came out and showed you didn't read the whole diary properly and jumped right to the comments to check for drama, you lost your objectivity.

                you became too vested in proving that I did something wrong to make you misunderstand, rather than actually realizing this is a legitimate problem that I'm raising the issue of from MY ANGLE. which means i don't cover the interests of corporations or whatever the hell other random interest groups have some opposition to this.

                NOTHING justifies the kind of secretive passage of a repeal of significant provisions in a bill like this.

                I'm just the messenger putting out the work done by solid think-tanks and journalists to raise awareness of this issue.

                At the time I wrote about this news it wasn't even covered in NYtimes,Wapo, etc.

                These are the kinds of things I like to bring up in my diary posts.

                Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

                by aguadito on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:13:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site