Showing posts with label Seattle Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seattle Times. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 10, 2026

Newspapers believe we have to give them taxpayer money. Conflict of interest, anyione?

The Seattle Times, which is to political fairness what concrete is to cottage cheese, is demanding a bail out of state taxpayer dollars... of $24 million.... to start... but we all know, of course, that number will climb higher and faster as long as they continue to play ball with those in the legislature cutting the checks. .

How could it not?

Such a bill would cement the obvious fringe-left bias of most every newspaper in the state.

How is it REMOTELY possible to continue the charade of impartiality the media is SUPPOSED to have (but which we all know, have long since given up even the APPEARENCE of in either their articles or their editorials) when those they cover are cutting 8 figure checks to buy their cooperative coverage?

Wasn't it democrat Lyndon Johnson who once famously said that, "...down in Texas, once we buy a politician, he stays bought?"

And these news outlets supposed to benefit from this corruption would be any different?

It isn't. This is nothing but progressive advertising, paid for by OUR money, cash on the barrel head, under the guise of news.

Leftist bias in this state's major media is both well-known and undeniable. This is a guarantee it will stay this way.
How can any media outlet accept taxpayer money without supporting those who gave them the cash?

These scum want taxpayer money to continue to pump out leftist propaganda at taxpayer expense!

And this Seattle Times article expects us to go along with it?
What other business get taxpayer money to stay in business in this state? Bakeries? Car washes? Grocery stores? What?
Why is it OK for leftist propaganda organs but no one else?
We don't need biased local news in this state. We have enough of this garbage as is, and the costs to buy their products are OBSCENE.


If you can't compete with other news sources, then close down. If you have to shut down because you can't steal our money to run your "for profit" democrat PR arm?
You won't be missed. And proof of that is how have we survived without the Seattle Post Intelligencer, which went under several years ago, save for a website? Not only NO, but HELL no. Not a penny. This is NOT why we pay taxes to the Washington Soviet, and they waste enough of our money as is.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Two perspectives on 1033: the Columbian and The Seattle Times... the liars, and those who are actually journalists.

.
As we all know by now, the fringe-left rag this community is cursed with has come out against and, in fact, has actively campaigned again, I-1033, the initiative designed to rein in out-of-control government spending at every level from the state on down.

Of course our local paper's main concern is government; "people" rarely figure into their radar screen, as illustrated by the bizarre headline they used to shill their efforts against 1033:

"In our view: ‘No' on I-1033
Eyman's latest initiative might sound good, but governments would be denied recovery"
That this is a fringe-left government shilling waste of wood pulp is confirmed with this headline.

Is the focus on the fiscal blood-letting we've suffered in this state, with a 33% increase in this state's budget with more tax increases to come?

"GOVERNMENTS" would be "denied recovery."

Why is their focus on "government," and not on the PEOPLE?

Obviously, there's no accounting for self-imposed, ritual financial suicide.

That said, the endorsement of the "no" position appears to have been taken, word for word, from the scum trying to scare us into voting against this badly needed initiative by a campaign that has out spent the "Yes" side something on the order of 86 to 1 for their campaign.

Our despicable rag has run several quotes from state and local government employees that fear pay cuts and some such when 1033 passes. They've run, essentially, nothing from the tens of thousands of us who actually support this thing. In fact, they went so far as to quote some blithering idiot who said we would DIE if this thing passes.

What a surprise.

But taking it a step further, like the rest of the scum campaigning against 1033, the Columbian has re-printed the Colorado lie:

But it's the same kind of scheme that backfired in Colorado when a one-size-fits-all formula was passed by voters in 1992. In the next few years, the quality of public schools and health care plummeted. Health insurance problems also mushroomed, and numerous other public crises arose.

In 2005, Colorado voters decided to stop their suffering. They repealed the law.
Why this rag feels to engage in such lazy, leftist lying is just beyond me.

Here's the TRUTH from a frequently journalistic newspaper, unlike the crap pile we're stuck with:

Similarities don't add up in Colorado comparison

Opponents of Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 say you only need to look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) to see what could happen here if the measure is approved. But I-1033 and the Colorado law have major differences, and there is no consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.

By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporter

Opponents of Tim Eyman'sInitiative 1033 say you need only look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights tosee what would happen here if 1033 were approved.

Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1992 with a provision requiring state and local governments to limit revenue increases to population and inflation, and send any excess money back to taxpayers. But that's about the only thing the two measures have in common.

In fact, the Colorado law, known as TABOR,and I-1033 have more differences than similarities.

And there is no apparent consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.
Much MORE truth here:

So... who do we believe? Note the complete absence of ANY alternative from our local version of Pravda?

A newspaper like the Seattle Times that actually did the work and who's analysis puts the lie to morons squeaking about how 1033 is Colorado's TABOR in sheep's clothing?

Or a fringe-left rag that seems to have looked no farther than the "No on I-1033's" web site of lies, copied it and pasted it in their own newspaper? A newspaper with columnists who lie (Yeah, I mean YOU, Laird) and who take positions using fake polls while they do everything they can to shut the people up while they're trying to ram a horrifically expensive, unneeded and unwanted project that THEY will not have to pay for down our collective throats.

Gee. That's a toughy.

Hopefully, those from our local despicable rag reading this (and I know you do) will correct their list of lies they use to oppose this effort...because, after all, the truth is out now... and in this case, the truth is that this rag's concern only extends to feeding government so they can try and get more and BIGGER tax breaks from the government teat their collective mouth is glue to with rivets.
.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

The Seattle Times nails it: Change Washington law to open government

If we could only see this happen at every level of government.


Originally published November 16, 2008 at 12:00 AM Page modified November 16, 2008 at 12:54 AM

Comments (6) E-mail article Print view

Editorial

Change Washington law to open government

The Washington Legislature should follow the recommendations of the state Sunshine Committee to more narrowly define when government agencies can cite attorney-client privileges to keep information secret from the public. Sliver-thin majorities in two state Supreme Court decisions have helped to keep the secrets.

Seattle Times editorial

THE state Legislature should blow away the clouds gathering over open-government practices in recent years and follow the clear recommendation of its own so-called Sunshine Committee.

Officially known as the Public Records Accountability Executive Committee, the panel voted 7-3 Wednesday, urging the Legislature to pass legislation to raise the shades on what has become a state Supreme Court-condoned practice of excessively hiding information from the public.

The panel recommends lawmakers more narrowly define when government agencies can cite privilege for attorney-client communications or work — definitions that have expanded over the past few years thanks to sliver-thin majorities on the state's highest court.

More: