“We published a piece accusing Goldman Sachs of systematically ripping off pensioners and other retail investors by sticking them with rafts of toxic mortgages it knew were losers, of looting taxpayer reserves to cover its bad bets made with AIG, of manipulating gas prices to massive detrimental effect, of helping to explode an internet bubble that caused over $5 trillion in wealth to disappear, and numerous other crimes — and the response isn’t “You’re wrong,” or “We didn’t do that shit, not us,” but “Well, Morgan did the same stuff,” and “Why aren’t you writing about Morgan?”
Why didn’t we write about Morgan? Because we didn’t. Because it’s your turn, you assholes. ”

What’s your angle here, accusing Taibbi of “conspiracy theories”? and shouldn’t you be writing, as a so-called business journalist, about the actual problem, instead of accusing other journalists of being “conspiracy theorists”? If not, then we know whose side you are on. And knowing that, why should we view you as anything more than a print Jim Cramer, serving as Goldman Sachs PR agent on the internet?

Stories like Goldman Sachs usually wither and die. Unless of course the writer behind them starts getting served up round after round of ad hominem attacks. And the best part: in your case, you aren’t very good at it! A smart hatchet job would have construed Taibbi’s motivations as analogous to those of a Michael Moore. More over, a smart hatchet job would drop a deliberately misleading and out of context link to one of Taibbi’s earlier pieces. You could have gone with something like “Taibbi, no stranger to conspiracy theories, offered the Loose Change crowd his take on the planning of the inside job.”

This isn’t 1996, everybody gets their buckets of ink for free. You’ll need to do a hell of a lot better than this lame crap. The dirty f-ing hippies and the Ron Paul types have started humming similar tunes about Wall Street and they aren’t going to shut up about it just because a Rolling Stone writer gets accused of being a myopic conspiracy nut. You have either complete assassinate his character — kinda hard when that guy is seen, rightly or not, as the spiritual successor to Hunter S Thompson — or take a different tack.

This isn’t a troll, is it?

If so, you got me!

Goldman may not be singularly responsible, but they seem to have played a huge part, and to their credit, they’ve been more successful despite it than their competitors.

You’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.