good lord thats fucking [old]

and what?

you got a problem with burning man now? that shit's gone corporate. you should embrace it.

11/1/2007 11:00:12 PM

^ The guy was arrested on Sunday (October 28) and the blog entry was from October 30, 2007. It's not that old--and I haven't seen any discussions about it here.

In any event, I suppose it's typical behavior in the People's Republic of Seattle for some left-wing nutball to be arrested on the steps of a church with a belt of explosives strapped to his ass. And I suppose it's de rigueur for some leftist kook editorial board member at the Seattle P-I to wax enthusiastic that the resulting church conflagration could have been great performance art.

Just another day in the life on the Left Coast, huh? Jesus (pun intended).

11/2/2007 6:29:37 AM

Clearly the kind of guy we should take seriously.

11/2/2007 9:16:43 AM

^ When the guy's arrested carrying a belt of explosives near a place of worship we absolutely should take him seriously--but you already know this, don't you, comrade?

11/2/2007 10:10:13 AM

oh, i just barely skimmed he article.

i thought it was about the guy setting fire to The Man ahead of schedule.

i didnt realize he had gone completely off his nut.

11/2/2007 10:49:46 AM

Sure, we should take him as seriously as any other person who tries to burn buildings down.

Certainly more seriously than some idiot trying to use a blog entry as the basis for labeling a newspaper, an entire city, and an arsonist as typical liberals.

Everyday your lack of basic thought processes becomes more and more evident.

11/2/2007 11:13:01 AM

^^ Yeah, I was wondering about that--but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't pounce too hard on you. Seattle suffered a bit in my attack, though.

^ "Everyday"


[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 11:14 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 11:14:09 AM

Pretty typical response on your part...fixate on the minutiae while ignoring broader points.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ]

11/2/2007 11:54:31 AM

okay.... i just now looked into this.

all i can say is

it's from a *blog* -- a blog by arguably one of the worst columnist at the Seattle P-I:

Quote :

"D. Parvaz used to be the Pop Culture and Style reporter at the P-I. She took great pleasure in writing the weekly Popping Off column, dealing with subjects such as the MTV Video Awards, Seattle's Street of Dreams and the follies of the Bush Administration."

and did i mention... this was her blog???

for you to base judgement of an entire city on a blog? holy shit, did you even bother to read the multitude of reader comments blasting her for being such a stupid twat?

damn, and you wonder why some folks have taken to calling you kooksaw

11/2/2007 5:54:54 PM

^ If you had investigated a bit further, you would have found the Parvaz is also a member of the editorial board at the paper. In this position, it is reasonable to assume that she has some effect on the editorial position of the paper--this little fact enhances the importance of Parvaz's commentary.

And you wonder why some folks used to call you joe_shithead.

Now this:

Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased

Quote :

"Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers. Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans. Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which 'produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans.'"

Quote :

"CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical. The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's 'Morning Edition.' There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports. Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%. The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book 'The Media Elite'; 'A Measure of Media Bias,' a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, 'Bias' and 'Arrogance.' All underscore the media's leftward leanings. The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story — one that can't be edited or spiked."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=278808786575124

Thank you, Harvard, for confirming what most of us already know.



[Edited on November 4, 2007 at 2:28 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2007 2:14:05 AM

Look what the fucking left-wing moonbat idiots at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer have done now. They've photochopped images of President Bush and Vice President Cheney in prison garb.

Let me guess: Many of you don't find this (1) biased or (2) inappropriate.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/340904_focusimpeachment25.html

11/28/2007 2:47:43 AM

Biased? Yeah, it's a Seattle newspaper. Newspapers can get away with being biased because they represent certain regions. Seattle is definitely a liberal city.

Inappropriate? Maybe. It's not so inappropriate in the context of the article. As for the concept of photoshopping the president into pictures like that... I can find a whole bunch worse pictures on the internet if you'd like.

BTW, that's a decent article. Brings up some good points about impeaching Bush/Cheney. 75% of Democrats and a majority of adults favor it apparently.

11/28/2007 3:10:16 AM

Looks like a politcal cartoon of sorts to me. It's even on the opinion page where such things normally appear.

11/28/2007 7:40:25 AM

Hard not to have an opinion page that isn't subjective isn't it?

11/28/2007 9:15:03 AM

^^ and ^ Yeah, the Seattle P-I does a great fucking job.

This is the same rag that wouldn't print the photo of two suspicious ferry passengers--who are still at large. Instead they printed a fucking haiku--and later apologized for the "bad call" but they still didn't print the photo.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/archives/120490.asp

11/28/2007 10:07:59 AM

Quote :

"two suspicious ferry passengers--who are still at large."

So... did they actually do anything or are they just "suspicious"? I mean having your photo printed for being "suspicious" would kind of fuck you over for a while- regardless of how innocent you might be.

From what I've found:

Quote :

"Calkins says the photo-takers drew attention because they were behaving a little differently than commuters or tourists."

It looks like they were just taking photos in a strange way. Man it would suck to have your picture posted in the newspaper because some racist old lady saw your brown skin and camera and thought "oh noes a terrorist."

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 11:15 AM. Reason : ]

11/28/2007 11:12:59 AM

why dont you leave that up to the courts to decide......if your pic gets shoved on the front page of newspapers then you might have a chance at winning a judgement for slander. Obiously, these toolbags were up to something illegal because they haven't come forward yet...fucking idiot

and dont give me the "maybe they don't know bullshit"

11/28/2007 12:58:39 PM

^ Indeed. And there's this:

Quote :

"In June 2004, several Marine and Navy officers attending the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., conducted surveillance of the ferries as a class project and determined they were vulnerable to attack. In the spring of 2004, the FBI conducted a threat assessment of the ferry system and concluded that terrorists were conducting 'pre-operational planning' for an attack. The assessment was based on a review of 157 suspicious incidents over nearly three years. Analysts concluded that 19 of them were likely or extremely likely to have involved terrorist surveillance."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003847538_ferries22m.html

Quote :

"Puget Sound's busy ferries are the No. 1 target for maritime terrorism in this country, sharing that nerve-jangling status with Gulf Coast fuel tankers, according to a national assessment of efforts to protect U.S. seaports. The findings, contained in a recent Justice Department inspector general's report, mark the first time the FBI has publicly placed such a high-risk label on Washington State Ferries."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/267580_ferryterror21.html

Of course, the left-wing moonbats at the Seattle P-I used the rest of their piece to downplay the significance of the reports.

11/28/2007 1:50:40 PM

I don't see anywhere in the article that's downplaying the reports. It seems to explain how they came to the conclusions they did regarding the reports. How is that downplaying?

11/28/2007 1:54:02 PM

this shit again?

hey, y'all, its a well-known fact out here -- in the Puget Sound -- that our ferry system (the largest in the country) is vulnerable to attack. No one has been downplaying this. Our two papers, the P-I and the Times, have devoted considerable number of column inches reporting this.

but of course all us commie terrorist-loving moonbats out here are secretly hoping it will all get blown up because we hate freedom.

In fact, we want our local papers to print more of these threat-awareness articles in the hopes that even more brown folks wearing North Face and REI gear get some ideas.

and hey, am i allowed to cite Mister Rolly?

11/28/2007 3:21:40 PM

^^ Oh, bullshit. That "report" has more buts in it than a conjunction orgy. Did you even read it? Seriously.

^ Lock it up, XO.

11/28/2007 3:37:05 PM

Quote :

"But Turner and other local FBI officials, along with the Coast Guard, suggested Thursday that the top ranking may be because of more aggressive reporting in this region. Turner credited his agency's "very robust" efforts to monitor all suspicious incidents and the Washington State Ferries program to enlist help from crews and passengers as being likely factors in driving up the number of reported incidents."

So the guy says here that his agency is awesome so they turn in more reports than most people. Nothing liberal about this.

Quote :

""You cannot conclude from the fact that we have a lot of intelligence reporting that we are a No. 1 target," said Laura Laughlin, the FBI's special agent in charge in Seattle. "Obviously, the potential for a terrorist incident is here. But that's reading a lot into it to say that.""

read: Just because it's rated high on the terrorist watch list doesn't mean there will absolutely be an attack here.

Again, nothing liberal about saying things that are common sense. This is an FBI agents quote as well.

Quote :

"But Turner said there have been fewer incidents considered high-risk in the most recent reporting period."

OH NO, LESS INCIDENTS???? DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE LIEBERALS ARE TRYING TO SHUT PEOPLE UP SO THE TERRORISTS CAN GET IN?

Or does it mean people got sick of reporting every strange thing they saw?

Quote :

"The national report hasn't resulted in an increase in the maritime security alert level, said Coast Guard Capt. Stephen Metruck, who as captain-of-the-port holds sway over maritime operations, controlling and setting maritime security levels in Puget Sound. But Metruck said a wide range of security enhancements have gone into effect in the last couple of years and the measures are being continuously re-evaluated."

Sorry, can't pull anything here, I just don't see bias, but maybe I need my tin hat.

Quote :

"But Craig Swanson, 53, of Bainbridge said, "I would worry more about being hit by a car on the freeway than being hit by a terrorist." Jenn Spies, 16, of Bainbridge, agreed. "If it was a big concern of mine," she said, "I wouldn't be riding on the ferry.""

Ah, here we go finally, the liberal bias! One states something that is actually a fact, and the other is a liberal teenager who uses logical reasoning in her decision making skills!

11/28/2007 3:45:13 PM

^ Yeah, those "reporters" really went out of their way to balance the opinion expressed there.

Look, it has already been established that the editorial position of Seattle P-I is guided by a nest of left-wing loons. NEWSFLASH: The editorial position of a newspaper often leaks out into the supposedly hard news coverage. FYI.

11/28/2007 3:50:07 PM

You still haven't shown me how the article has a 'liberal bias.'

11/28/2007 3:53:41 PM

^ There's a thread of left-wing bias that runs through the entire piece. If you can't see it, no amount of effort by me will convince you.

11/28/2007 3:55:27 PM

Quote :

" Yeah, those "reporters" really went out of their way to balance the opinion expressed there."

Who would you like them to have talked to? They interviewed an FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst, the FBI Special Agent in Charge of Seattle, and the USCG Captain of the Port. Who else would you talk to concerning threat asessments of the Puget Sound Ferries?

11/28/2007 3:56:04 PM

Well if you could show me quotes that espouse left-wing bias then I may be tempted to agree with you. However, you simply saying 'YOU CAN'T SEE ALL THE LEFT WING BIAS SEETHING OUT OF THAT NEWSPAPER' provides absolutely no evidence for me to examine.

11/28/2007 3:56:45 PM

^

Quote :

"If you can't see it, no amount of effort by me will convince you."

11/28/2007 4:24:48 PM

That's a cop out.

11/28/2007 4:25:41 PM

Quote :

"If you have this information, please enlighten me"

Seriously, don't demand evidence in one thread and then claim you don't have to provide any in another. Especially if you're trying to debate the same person.

11/28/2007 4:30:02 PM

Quote :

"^ There's a thread of left-wing bias that runs through the entire piece. If you can't see it, no amount of effort by me will convince you. "

So you're basically asserting an opinion, and refusing to debate it?

Isn't that against our new TSB™ rules?

11/28/2007 5:14:06 PM

^^ I said "please."

^ If you think you're going to make me work for you, you're sadly mistaken. Some things are self-evident--if you choose not to see them, that's your problem. The specific "report" in question and the ongoing left-wing lunacy at the Seattle P-I (the ferry suspect fiasco, the church-arsonist-as-performance-artist outrage, and the Bush-Cheney prison garb libelous photochop are a few examples) should be enough for anyone to see a pattern.

BTW, I see you attempting to build a case against me, boreon. It really is a bore. I guess masturbation's lost its fun, huh?

11/28/2007 5:32:11 PM

What you're claiming is that this article is biased. You have yet to provide any text from this article that is biased. I pulled out the 'but' quotes that you used as evidence and put your argument in question and yet you still claim there is bias but refuse to show me where. Given this, I think your argument is pretty weak at best.

11/28/2007 5:52:57 PM

^ Think what you will. The Seattle P-I is biased and evidence abounds of that.

11/28/2007 6:06:02 PM

Quote :

"Bush-Cheney prison garb libelous photochop"

...and this is libelous how?



Seriously, how is an obvious 'photochop' (I'm not sure this even qualifies as a photochop) of two public figures printed on the opinion page of a newspaper libelous?

Quote :

"Some things are self-evident--if you choose not to see them, that's your problem."

That's a cop out.

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 6:19 PM. Reason : ]

11/28/2007 6:08:44 PM

i find it odd that hooksaw so often starts a new rampage about my daily paper 3000 miles away from him.

how many times now have you chosen this particular "moonbat nest" as the target of your ire?

isnt there another liberal rag closer to home (or even in a more significant media market) to pick on??

11/28/2007 6:50:15 PM

Quote :

"Obiously, these toolbags were up to something illegal because they haven't come forward yet...fucking idiot "

to which I say:

Quote :

" Why don't you leave that for a court to decide. "

People rarely win slander suits in such cases anyways- as long as the reporters either acted in good faith or tucked enough qualifies into their language. In the end if you're shown as suspected for something, tons of people will assume you're guilty of it. Case in point- you. It's not at all possible they were actually tourists and long gone now. Fucking hypocrite.

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 8:13 PM. Reason : ]

11/28/2007 8:12:12 PM

Quote :

"The Seattle P-I is biased and evidence abounds of that."

You claimed the article in question is biased. You need to put out some evidence or admit you're wrong. You can't just claim 'things are so' because you think they are, that's not how debating or reality works.

11/28/2007 10:05:50 PM

geez you guys,

Quote :

"widespread domestic wiretapping in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony. Bush already has admitted to this;"

When did Bush admit he had committed a felony?

Clear bias.

The only thing missing from that article is the address to send donations to the DNC, really people, seriously. Your blind hatred of hooksaw is rather boring.

11/29/2007 12:16:32 AM

It's an opinion piece from a guest journalist. How can you write a non-biased opinion piece unless you're using "opinion" in the sense of a professional opinion? Isn't your opinion, by definition, a reflection of your biases? I mean this is like bothering to point out that an opinion piece by o'reilly is biased.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 1:33 AM. Reason : ]

11/29/2007 1:26:00 AM

^^ I think people were talking about the article on the fairy guys, which really isn't as biased as hooksaw is making it out to be (not the articles link here anyway).

The thing you quoted is from the impeachment page, which I would guess, being an opinion and containing those pics, is going to be biased.

also, there isn't any "hatred" for hooksaw, just dislike for certain trollish tactics, and it's not blind, it's very clear, and often transcends partisan lines.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 2:47 AM. Reason : ]

11/29/2007 2:46:55 AM

Quote :

"i find it odd that hooksaw so often starts a new rampage about my daily paper 3000 miles away from him. how many times now have you chosen this particular 'moonbat nest' as the target of your ire? isnt there another liberal rag closer to home (or even in a more significant media market) to pick on??"

joe_schmoe

The Seattle P-I keeps popping up on my radar screen--I'm not seeking it out. I find their editorial positions and general left-wing bias to be particularly egregious.

And I guess you have an affinity for mock mug shots, am I right, schmoe?

^^^ Thanks, mathman. It's just their hooksaw derangement syndrome flaring up again. I'm working on the cure.

^^ The editorial position that a particular paper takes is worthy of examination. And as I have indicated, the editorial position can and often does bleed into the day-to-day news coverage. I just don't like the way the Seattle P-I operates.

^ The "article on the fairy guys"? WTF?! I didn't see that one.

BTW, please stop referring to me as a troll and/or indicating that I use "certain trollish tactics"--it's simply not the case. This campaign of yours against me is rather transparent.

11/29/2007 4:29:57 AM

^

Quote :

"Bush-Cheney prison garb libelous photochop"

...and this is libelous how?



Seriously, how is an obvious 'photochop' (I'm not sure this even qualifies as a photochop) of two public figures printed on the opinion page of a newspaper libelous?

------------------------

As pointed out several times, how do you expect an opinion page article to NOT be biased?

------------------------

This article you posted, hooksaw, which is about ferries in Seattle:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/267580_ferryterror21.html

You claim that it's biased in that it's written to "downplay the significance of the reports." The following posts asked you specific questions about the article:

/message_topic.aspx?topic=485359&page=6#10972523
/message_topic.aspx?topic=485359&page=6#10973126
/message_topic.aspx?topic=485359&page=6#10973170

You have refused to answer them all.

------------------------

Quote :

"The "article on the fairy guys"?"

I don't believe anyone here thinks you're too dumb to realize that he's talking about the ferry articles that you posted.

-------------------------

In the end, I'm sure you'll still refuse to answer the questions and just blame it on "hooksaw derangement syndrome" or on people out to get you suspended.

There's no way anyone could ever legitimately disagree with you, right? [/sarcasm]

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 7:29 AM. Reason : ]

11/29/2007 7:25:58 AM

Thank you

11/29/2007 7:31:23 AM

bttt for hooksaw

11/29/2007 1:02:37 PM

Quote :

"I don't believe anyone here thinks you're too dumb to realize that he's talking about the ferry articles that you posted. "

Dammit, I knew I was spelling that word wrong, but it was like 2AM and I didn't realize what I was doing wrong

11/29/2007 1:38:38 PM

^x4 libel:

Quote :

"defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures."

Quote :

"anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel

Unfortunately, people can defame or ridicule government officials in just about any way that they choose. While the ridiculous image may not fit the legal definition of libel--I'm not a lawyer--it certainly fits my definition of it.

The Seattle P-I is a left-wing rag that doesn't have the decency to be ashamed of itself. If I were an editor of a conservative publication, I would never, ever allow such an image to be published of even the most despised left-wing loon out there.

And another thing: I'm not always going to give the answer that suits you--as if any I would give ever would. You're going to have to come to grips with that reality--and I don't work for you.

11/29/2007 1:47:50 PM

Quote :

"While the ridiculous image may not fit the legal definition of libel--I'm not a lawyer--it certainly fits my definition of it. "

So when you claimed it was libel, you were just speaking figuratively or embellishing your posts a bit?

You can't use specific words in ways only you understand, and expect others to know what you mean.

Talk about coming to grips with reality...

11/29/2007 1:51:24 PM

^ For those with eyes to see and the mind to comprehend, it can clearly be seen that the shameful image fits the dictionary's definition of libel, which I included, and my definition of libel, but probably not the legal definition. Get it? Please just STFU.

11/29/2007 2:19:51 PM

It certainly doesn't fit common usage.

hooksaw, I know you'll probably respond to this with at least one emoticon and probably a "McDouche" and probably a "hooksaw derangement syndrome," but I'm going to say it anyway:

When you engage in an argument and somebody challenges one of your premises, it's up to you to establish the truth of the premise. It would be a fairly straight-forward thing for you to analyze whatever evidence you think shows liberal bias so we have a point of departure for discussion. It's not "working for us," it's called "participating in an argument."

If you simply refuse to qualify your claim, then it halts discussion (as it has been for a while now).

11/29/2007 2:25:19 PM