Comments on: WSJ union head: Don’t sell to Murdoch. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:42:42 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: George Fondis http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3958366 George Fondis Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:56:50 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3958366 Are we falling asleep on the job? Why Murdoch dismissed the Harper editor? We may know the answer but.......where have seen such corporate decision before? Is News Corp closely allied with The New World Order? Are we falling asleep on the job?

Why Murdoch dismissed the Harper editor? We may know the answer but…….where have seen such corporate decision before?

Is News Corp closely allied with The New World Order?

]]> By: anonymous http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3957248 anonymous Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:05:02 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3957248 ...i can see it now...circus clowns in the editorial room and miss new jersey lining up guests for the week-in-review program, while fighting off bill o'whats-his-name. …i can see it now…circus clowns in the editorial room and miss new jersey lining up guests for the week-in-review program, while fighting off bill o’whats-his-name.

]]> By: Miro http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956492 Miro Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:27:32 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956492 They could all quit and start a blog and it would serve the community better. They could all quit and start a blog and it would serve the community better.

]]> By: The Eck http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956347 The Eck Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:52:03 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956347 But the latest move by globe trotting, hyper-liberal billionaire George Soros borders on being too much. According to papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of ... hold your breath ... Halliburton. The Halliburton shares reportedly went for an average purchase price of $31.30 a share. That puts Soros' total investment in Halliburton at around $62.6 million, or about 2 percent of his total portfolio. http://blogs.phillynews.com/dailynews/mt-comments-trythis.cgi?entry_id=4449 Michael Moore owns Halliburton! New book debunks claims of celebrity activists He's right. He doesn't own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47174 But the latest move by globe trotting, hyper-liberal billionaire George Soros borders on being too much. According to papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of … hold your breath … Halliburton. The Halliburton shares reportedly went for an average purchase price of $31.30 a share. That puts Soros’ total investment in Halliburton at around $62.6 million, or about 2 percent of his total portfolio.

http://blogs.phillynews.com/dailynews/mt-comments-trythis.cgi?entry_id=4449

Michael Moore
owns Halliburton!
New book debunks claims of celebrity activists

He’s right. He doesn’t own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47174

]]> By: mikey r http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956253 mikey r Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:09:41 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956253 Good post, TRoS. It's a fine philosophical calculation, troll-hunting, isn't it? Speaking of Mr. Pee and his "Saudis are not Muslims" comment, do you suppose that's why he's abandoned his Mr. Pee identity and now is poosting as Thrasymacho" or whatever it is? Or is he tired of getting slammed for the Sgt. Shepherd incident? Good post, TRoS.

It’s a fine philosophical calculation, troll-hunting, isn’t it?

Speaking of Mr. Pee and his “Saudis are not Muslims” comment, do you suppose that’s why he’s abandoned his Mr. Pee identity and now is poosting as Thrasymacho” or whatever it is? Or is he tired of getting slammed for the Sgt. Shepherd incident?

]]> By: The Republic of Stupidity http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956241 The Republic of Stupidity Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:05:43 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956241 Is OK mikey if you need theraputic value. I sometimes need to vent on their ridiculous posts sometimes. They do make it real easy, like fish and barrel. Comment by RUCerious It's not so much a case of taking the high road, it's more one of doing what's most effective. Trust me... I love a good game of Whack-A-Troll as much as anybody here. I've just come to the conclusion we undermind ourselves some times by the way we reply to trolls, and even end up being manipulated if we're not on or toes, guys. If you try to rebutt a truly irrational comment directly, it actually gives validity to the point, by making it appear to be worthy of rebuttal. I'm trying to learn how to look at the comment and then decide, what's the best way to neutralize this idiocy? Sometimes you can factually knock them down, which is always good. If the ywant to go w/ facts, you can debate that and win. Just make sure what you say is verifiable (I love Google!!) and always take a minute to make sure they're NOT making their facts up (they do!). Sometimes you can use humor, which can really cut them off at the knees. It's hard to be blustery when people are lauging at you. Sometimes all you can do is say "That is an irrational comment" and walk away. It's no good to get into a name-calling, push-pull situation around a comment that doesn't mean anything ( So-and-so has a fat a**!!). Just walk away from the truly juvenile comments that can only be meant to disrupt. Save your shots for those moments when you can REALLY nail their hides to the wall, like Mr P and his infamous "Saudis aren't Moslems" comment. He made that statement, we trapped him w/ his own words, and we beat him like a gong! THAT was Whack-A-Troll at its finest! Is OK mikey if you need theraputic value. I sometimes need to vent on their ridiculous posts sometimes. They do make it real easy, like fish and barrel.

Comment by RUCerious

It’s not so much a case of taking the high road, it’s more one of doing what’s most effective. Trust me… I love a good game of Whack-A-Troll as much as anybody here.

I’ve just come to the conclusion we undermind ourselves some times by the way we reply to trolls, and even end up being manipulated if we’re not on or toes, guys.

If you try to rebutt a truly irrational comment directly, it actually gives validity to the point, by making it appear to be worthy of rebuttal. I’m trying to learn how to look at the comment and then decide, what’s the best way to neutralize this idiocy?

Sometimes you can factually knock them down, which is always good. If the ywant to go w/ facts, you can debate that and win. Just make sure what you say is verifiable (I love Google!!) and always take a minute to make sure they’re NOT making their facts up (they do!).

Sometimes you can use humor, which can really cut them off at the knees. It’s hard to be blustery when people are lauging at you.

Sometimes all you can do is say “That is an irrational comment” and walk away. It’s no good to get into a name-calling, push-pull situation around a comment that doesn’t mean anything ( So-and-so has a fat a**!!). Just walk away from the truly juvenile comments that can only be meant to disrupt.

Save your shots for those moments when you can REALLY nail their hides to the wall, like Mr P and his infamous “Saudis aren’t Moslems” comment. He made that statement, we trapped him w/ his own words, and we beat him like a gong! THAT was Whack-A-Troll at its finest!

]]> By: spit take http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956229 spit take Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:00:11 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956229 Excellent point, gummitch. The WSJ is universally regarded as an excellent source of journalism, while the editorial page has always been as far right as the WaTimes. That's the fear among the Journal reporters, as I understand it. That the news/editorial wall that has protected the journalists and allowed them to build the reputation that they have will crumble under the heavy hand of Rupert. Excellent point, gummitch. The WSJ is universally regarded as an excellent source of journalism, while the editorial page has always been as far right as the WaTimes.

That’s the fear among the Journal reporters, as I understand it. That the news/editorial wall that has protected the journalists and allowed them to build the reputation that they have will crumble under the heavy hand of Rupert.

]]> By: gummitch http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956202 gummitch Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:51:04 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956202 <em>Let’s forget for a moment how ludicrous the “financial, political and regulatory interests alien to what we do” part of the argument was. I think that Murdoch’s purchase would only affect the WSJ by making it just a more intense version of what it already is anyway. It’s the extension of his reach in powerful global media as a general matter that worries me more than anything. Between the newspapers and other media outlets that Murdoch owns all over the world, it’s like a global monopoly, and what worries me is that it seems to be unstoppable. Comment by Alexandra </em> The Wall Street Journal has been, for many years, an extreme example of the "wall" between news and opinion. The journalists working for the WSJ are extremely good at their jobs and pride themselves on their independence. The editors at the WSJ are among the most right wing elements in print and would, IMO, cheerfully hand the nation over to the fascists without batting an eye. The problem with this purchase is that Murdoch will undoubtedly break that wall down and poison the news reporting with the typical Murdoch agenda. Let’s forget for a moment how ludicrous the “financial, political and regulatory interests alien to what we do” part of the argument was. I think that Murdoch’s purchase would only affect the WSJ by making it just a more intense version of what it already is anyway. It’s the extension of his reach in powerful global media as a general matter that worries me more than anything. Between the newspapers and other media outlets that Murdoch owns all over the world, it’s like a global monopoly, and what worries me is that it seems to be unstoppable.

Comment by Alexandra

The Wall Street Journal has been, for many years, an extreme example of the “wall” between news and opinion. The journalists working for the WSJ are extremely good at their jobs and pride themselves on their independence. The editors at the WSJ are among the most right wing elements in print and would, IMO, cheerfully hand the nation over to the fascists without batting an eye.

The problem with this purchase is that Murdoch will undoubtedly break that wall down and poison the news reporting with the typical Murdoch agenda.

]]> By: RUCerious http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956180 RUCerious Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:43:34 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956180 Is OK mikey if you need theraputic value. I sometimes need to vent on their ridiculous posts sometimes. They do make it real easy, like fish and barrel. Is OK mikey if you need theraputic value. I sometimes need to vent on their ridiculous posts sometimes. They do make it real easy, like fish and barrel.

]]> By: mikey r http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956160 mikey r Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:36:35 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956160 <em>I make it a point of ignoring trolls when they try to disrupt, distract, or otherwise make dumbass statements that attempt to bait. Comment by RUCerious — July 23, 2007 @ 2:16 pm</em> A wise strategy. And I salute you for it. Unfortunately, I'm not highly evolved enough to follow that path. I try, but sometimes they just sit there so stupidly in the middle of the road, looking like fat pigeons with a broken wing must look to a hungry cat. It's no excuse, I know. I'm trying. I make it a point of ignoring trolls when they try to disrupt, distract, or otherwise make dumbass statements that attempt to bait.

Comment by RUCerious — July 23, 2007 @ 2:16 pm

A wise strategy. And I salute you for it.

Unfortunately, I’m not highly evolved enough to follow that path. I try, but sometimes they just sit there so stupidly in the middle of the road, looking like fat pigeons with a broken wing must look to a hungry cat.

It’s no excuse, I know. I’m trying.

]]> By: Gerald Gibson http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956155 Gerald Gibson Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:35:37 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956155 Watch the movie NETWORK from 1976... 30 years ago.... Watch the movie NETWORK from 1976… 30 years ago….

]]> By: Cecil G. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956154 Cecil G. Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:35:34 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956154 - looks like union members "scared" of losing their jobs, and rightfully so, and Murdoch "Scared" of the truth so he'll sit his wrinkley ass on it. Newspapers. Good investments in the 21st century hehehhehehe - looks like union members “scared” of losing their jobs, and rightfully so, and Murdoch “Scared” of the truth so he’ll sit his wrinkley ass on it.
Newspapers. Good investments in the 21st century hehehhehehe

]]> By: The Republic of Stupidity http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956129 The Republic of Stupidity Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:29:42 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956129 Indeed, they are scared, crimedog, they are indeed. Comment by Thrasymachos Hmmm... last troll to use this phrasing, Indeed, they are.... they are indeed..., was indeed Mr P! Are crimedog & Thrasymachos the same person? Afraid of what? Indeed, they are scared, crimedog, they are indeed.

Comment by Thrasymachos

Hmmm… last troll to use this phrasing,

Indeed, they are…. they are indeed…,

was indeed Mr P! Are crimedog & Thrasymachos the same person?

Afraid of what?

]]> By: Thrasymachos http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956112 Thrasymachos Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:24:44 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956112 <blockquote> liberals are scared Comment by crimedog — July 23, 2007 @ 2:22 pm </blockquote> Indeed, they are scared, crimedog, they are indeed.

liberals are scared

Comment by crimedog — July 23, 2007 @ 2:22 pm

Indeed, they are scared, crimedog, they are indeed.

]]> By: crimedog http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956106 crimedog Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:22:46 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956106 liberals are scared liberals are scared

]]> By: Alexandra http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956102 Alexandra Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:19:40 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956102 Let's forget for a moment how ludicrous the "financial, political and regulatory interests alien to what we do" part of the argument was. I think that Murdoch's purchase would only affect the WSJ by making it just a more intense version of what it already is anyway. It's the extension of his reach in powerful global media as a general matter that worries me more than anything. Between the newspapers and other media outlets that Murdoch owns all over the world, it's like a global monopoly, and what worries me is that it seems to be unstoppable. Let’s forget for a moment how ludicrous the “financial, political and regulatory interests alien to what we do” part of the argument was. I think that Murdoch’s purchase would only affect the WSJ by making it just a more intense version of what it already is anyway. It’s the extension of his reach in powerful global media as a general matter that worries me more than anything. Between the newspapers and other media outlets that Murdoch owns all over the world, it’s like a global monopoly, and what worries me is that it seems to be unstoppable.

]]> By: Clyde the Ripper http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956097 Clyde the Ripper Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:18:13 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956097 "George Soros and Micheal Moore each owned stock..." The key word here is "owned," past tense. Before Cheney, Halliburton was an honest respectable corporation. It is true that evil corrupts. Hey Zooey, I'm 50 pounds lighter and 10 years younger and came close to catching Granny yesterday! “George Soros and Micheal Moore each owned stock…”

The key word here is “owned,” past tense. Before Cheney, Halliburton was an honest respectable corporation. It is true that evil corrupts.

Hey Zooey, I’m 50 pounds lighter and 10 years younger and came close to catching Granny yesterday!

]]> By: RUCerious http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956094 RUCerious Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:16:30 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956094 mikey r I make it a point of ignoring trolls when they try to disrupt, distract, or otherwise make dumbass statements that attempt to bait. mikey r
I make it a point of ignoring trolls when they try to disrupt, distract, or otherwise make dumbass statements that attempt to bait.

]]> By: menehune http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956089 menehune Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:12:23 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956089 I remember hearing that progressives(Moore and Soros included) were buying or were going to buy shares in Halliburton so that they would have the right as shareholders to speak at the annual meeting and could vote against the war-profiteering board and policies. I'm not sure to what extent this took place, however... But it would be troll-typical to twist it. I remember hearing that progressives(Moore and Soros included) were buying or were going to buy shares in Halliburton so that they would have the right as shareholders to speak at the annual meeting and could vote against the war-profiteering board and policies. I’m not sure to what extent this took place, however… But it would be troll-typical to twist it.

]]> By: satnin http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/comment-page-1/#comment-3956080 satnin Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:09:46 +0000 http://edit.thinkprogress.org/2007/07/23/wsj-union-head-dont-sell-to-murdoch/#comment-3956080 I'm soo looking foreward to the CNBC "Money Honeys" on page 3 of the WSJ. ; ) I’m soo looking foreward to the CNBC “Money Honeys” on page 3 of the WSJ. ; )

]]>