Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Terrorists Win: Schumacher Fur and Outerwear to Move Out of Portland


They shouldn't have had to fight city hall to retain their rights to conduct a legal business, to be free from intimidation, death threats, threats to destroy their business using molotov cocktails (imagine what could have happened to the apartment dwellers above the store), but they did. They had to fight the prevailing mindset of Portland "leaders" that protesters have more rights than the law abiding among us. And they were aided and abetted by an apathetic and distracted citzenry that figured on some level the nutty people outside Schumachers and the factotums at City Hall certainly had the best for Portland at heart so they let them get away with this outrage.
Schumachers spent more than 100 years in the city.
Mazal tov to the Schumachers after molotovs were threatened.
Here's Matt who's with a group called
In Defense of Animals. He's the one who organized the assault on Schumachers.

And who at City Hall allowed this travesty to occur?
Randy Leonard who told the Schumachers, 'hey, why don't you move to Bridgeport?' 503-823-4682
And the rest of them who told the Schumachers to make nice with the protesters and just do what they asked and maybe the nuts would leave them alone.
Mayor Tom Potter 823-4120
Erik Sten 823-3589
Sam Adams 823-4128
Dan Saltzman 823-4151



52 comments:

  1. ....."and Atlas shrugged." Because my family lives (happily) outside of the liberal, anti-American ghetto of portlandistan, we are privileged to witness the migration of actual families, commerce, smiling faces, and good schools away from thug central. That's portland and multnomah county to you lefties. Your clownish government, your crime rate, your empty jails, your tram, your density (intellectually, as well as regards population), your drop-out rate, your hatred for America, ad nauseum, leads me to wish the best for any business forced to move in self-defense. How stupid must portland's citizens be to have such a hypocritical motto..."the city that works"...what a joke!

    ReplyDelete
  2. As with all stories, there are multiple sides. I wonder how much the Schumacher's did to contribute to their own demise.
    More of the Story Schumacher Fur

    Personally, I am on the anti-fur side (mostly). I am not completely against the use of animal products, but I am against many of the practices used to maximize the profit from animals.
    I also quit giving money to PETA years ago due to some of their protest tactics.

    Many animal rights folks are not vegetarians. Their protests of KFC have to do with how the animals are treated prior to death and method of death. It is not as much about avoiding animal products all together, it is about avoiding the unnecessary suffering of animals.

    We may need animal products and some life destruction is essential for survival. However, for the sake of maximizing profit, many of the practices in the animal-for-profit industry cause unnecessary suffering to these animals.

    ReplyDelete
  3. and another article:
    KGW article:Fur store owner wants PDX police protection

    A quote from above article:

    The Schumachers inflamed things further when they displayed a poster in their store’s front window that read, “All protesters should be beaten, strangled, skinned alive and anally electrocuted.”

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sometimes, I think profitable businesses subjected to these shakedowns in Portland should just close their doors and move out. Once gone, they don't have to pay the outrageous taxes Portland charges and can set up shop where they are welcomed.

    Charging that the Schumachers contribute to their own demise when they post something in their window in their own defense, after being subjected to protests, interference and blockage of LEGAL TRADE, is, to me, like saying banks contribute to their own robberies by posting rates and assets.

    Had the Police acted properly, as they did with the outrageous antics of some abortion protesters, maybe Schumachers would be remaining.

    Revelation 18:4 "I heard another voice from heaven, saying, " Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues;"

    As I sad last evening, when these protesters start worrying about unborn children as much as they worry about what possibly may have happened to an animal, maybe I'll listen to them.

    For those that don't like fur or eating meat, you have my blessings. I would never force it upon you. But if I decide to eat meat or wear a fur, you won't stop me, don't even try.

    Any bets these terroristic neo-coms will just follow the Schumachers?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The city of Portland wouldn't do anything if a bomb went off in a building, said Victoria Taft

    Sounds like the Waldorf Center has been putting the old botox toxin in the Botox Bimbo's brain instead of her face--which if you seen her lately you would agree that there is no change.

    I think it is great that Greg and his butcher shop are leaving Portland. The fact is the business was suffering not only because fur is out but they wasted much money ($2500.00 a week?) on those two fat slob security guards they had stationed in front. Greg couldn't keep these overweight flunkies from PPB in cheese burgers enough for them to cook up something against the animal rights activists.

    As for Portland losing a business, they are better for not having these clowns as part of it. The building the Schumacher occupy now will be snagged up pretty quick by some business eager to get into Downtown SW.

    The Schumachers on the other hand, will probably move to some low rent berg where they will have a lot of conservative supporters that can't afford to buy their cruel wares.

    Farewell to bad rubbish!

    ReplyDelete
  7. coboble, the site you linked to would fall flat on it's rump if it leaned any further left.

    As Robert gleefully muses, this is a major win for them. Of course, who will pay the taxes to afford their welfare isn't taken into consideration.

    From the site you linked, a few more colorful remarks about them leaving;

    "Finally,!! Christmas Came early"

    "We have successfully shown social disapproval. When I arrived in Portland, I was amazed to find a fur store unaccosted." and "Although getting out of the fur business entirely would have been a more ethical choice for Greg and Linda, we have shown that a society can choose what to tolerate. This is a great day for all of Portland and for the animals."

    "Something to truly be thankful for this holiday season. Horay!"

    "thanks to everyone who made this possible, we rock!! we must continue to fight for the animals, being the voice for the voiceless. this made my day,"

    And, what is their attitude about the senseless slaughter of unborn babies for convenience?

    "Word is that Schumacher is moving to Bridgeport Village. It will be harder to boycott the store once it moves onto private property"

    "Just wanted to give a big hi-5 and thanks to everyone who busted ass and stood in the rain and kept up the pressure on these scumbags over the last year. You all deserve a basket of fries and, ummm, a dry hump? Ah... you know what we're saying...."

    I hope more honest businesses flee Portland to elsewhere and allow that cesspool of socialism to fall flat on it's rump.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think it goes a little beyond self defense to put the sign in their window (the one mentioned in the article). I am not talking about 50% off sale signs either (those signs would correlate with a bank posting rates).

    I don't condone the behavior on either side of this.

    Why should the behavior of the protesters cause you to feel any less compassion for the animals which they are trying to protect? I am not certain of how much misbehavior occurred prior to being provoked, and what occurred after being provoked.

    Believe it or not, many of the same people who are against animal cruelty are also against most abortion.
    Doesn't it seem logical that someone with one of these stances might have the other as well?

    I figured this being a very right (not to be confused with correct) leaning site, to balance it needed a left leaning article.
    Wasn't one of the two articles somewhat center, in that it tried to give both sides.

    For the record, I care about animals and babies (both born and unborn). I am against welfare and if favor of poor farms where people have to work.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As I posted in the blog just behind this one, we all know now, with no uncertainty, who runs the City of Portland. It isn't the Mayor (?), Taliban Tommy, nor his toadies. It is the anarchist hoodlums who ganged together, unlawfully, to run the Schumachers out of town.

    And, after they relocate, it is a given that this gang of low-life, welfare cheating thugs will follow them to their new location. Maybe the new city will have a city government that will enforce the law and run this bunch off, unlike the pseudo-government that Portland is laboring under today.

    Just another thought about the leaders of the government-in-name-only of Portland, Taliban Tommy and the Toadies. Kind of sounds like a has-been, washed up (but still dirty), third rate singing group from the 60s doesn't it?

    Maybe Robert 19:10 was their roadie.

    ReplyDelete
  10. coboble, your compassion is candid. But, with what the Schumachers have had to put up with, with no assistance from the Police, the same Police that have sworn to "Protect and Serve," a sing of any kind in their window against the terrorists is a very restrained defense. In other times, a baseball bat might have been the sign.

    That being said, I don't agree that many of the same people who are against animal cruelty are also against most abortion. Some may say they are, but do they spend equal time pulling similar antics in front of abortion clinics as they do Schumachers? In the links you provided, do they mention any upcoming protests at abortion mills?

    Granted, some may be, but by and large, they aren't interseted in showing compassion for the animals. If so, they would be protesting back where animals are killed, in foreign lands where animals are killed in the manner they say they are and they would neither wear leather shoes nor eat gelatin.

    As far as balancing goes, try posting any right leaning articles at forums like DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground and see how they are received. Balance should be two ways, not just one. Then again, some 80% of "journalists" have admitted to being liberals. Where is their balance?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Springfield will welcome them with open arms.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The least we can do, before these animals give us their very life for our comfort and survival, is treat them well.
    I am not even asking people to give up animal products. I am only asking that they treat the animals well prior to killing them, and then kill them as painlessly as reasonable. I also ask that people avoid buying products where the animals were not treated reasonably if alternatives exist.

    I don't think this is too much to ask.

    Does anyone think this is too much to ask?

    If I join in any protests, I will abide by the law, and try to encourage those who are with me to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  13. coboble, I don't know of any that mistreat animals before they kill them. I'm sure there are some, no doubt, but there is a greater profit margin for those that treat the animls well, feed them well and such as their furs grow better and are more valuable once skinned. Look at the coat of well treated pets versus those that aren't sometime to see what I mean.

    Some animal rights activists don't want that known, so they bring out alleged films of many years ago or of another event and play them indicating it is being done now.

    That is propaganda and how it is used. Ask them sometime exactly where these farms are they are showing you and if in the U.S., why aren't they working to shut them down?

    They are excellent at tugging at heart strings and way too many fall for it before actually thinking about it and checking it out.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Heh, well waddya know. Looks like the great evil terrorist (sic) fur haters protests went a lot better than Victoria's protest and boycott of Google. Still doin' that one Vic?

    Draw all the weak parallels to abortion you like (didn't work with the elephant fetus thread, even worse here). A better parallel would be to swap your beloved fur store with a mega-pornography retailer. Shoe, meet the other foot.

    (psst - hey Victoria, Blogger is a service of Google)

    ReplyDelete
  15. So funny that the Schumachers got their asses whipped by some "protestors". The fact that the protestors were within the law has got all the right-winger's panties in a bunch. Maybe you all should work on getting rid of the Constitution. Oh darn, that's right you all got your asses beat at the ballot box. Maybe you all should just join the Schumachers and leave town as well, if not Oregon all together. Don't let the door hit you in the ...well.. you know the word. Bawhahahahah

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow, Roger. You sound almost like you would have approved of Krystal Nacht! Oh, that was within their law at the time, too.

    But I agree, Schumachers are making the best decision. Whever they end up will appreciate the amount of taxes they pay. Portland is lsoing their tax base daily and soon, only the socialist progressives will be there to pay all the taxes for all the programs they want in. Of course, they won't have any money for themselves, but that's the price you have to pay.

    The more the Peoples Republik of Portlandistand alienates their taxpayers, the better the economies of the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Liberal Socialist Communist "_ _ _ _" HATE most of the Private sector and Capitolism, and always have. Do the majority of you understand why these socialists migrate to Unionized Public Sector Jobs. They couldn't make it in the Real World if their life depended on it. Wal-Mart, Schumachers and I'm sure the list just gets bigger for the Socialist hit list.

    Ps I see a time in the near future where No Republicans live, work, or shop in URBAN AMERICA, and Socialists don't live, work, or shop in Suburban, rural, America. The Divorce is coming, and to some extent is already here.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Since the FOOD will be coming from conservative rural America, where the people also have the GUNS, I think we know how that struggle will end. Anyone seen "Escape from New York" lately?

    ReplyDelete
  19. This undoubtably will end with the city having to pay $$$ to settle the impending lawsuit from Schumacher's. I guess Caveman Randy and the rest of the blockheads down at city hall were running out of new ways to waste taxpayer dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I would think these protesters could be prosecuted at the federal level under the new Animal Enterprise Terrorism law signed yesterday.

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act'.

    SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF ECONOMIC DISRUPTION TO ANIMAL ENTERPRISES AND THREATS OF DEATH AND SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO ASSOCIATED PERSONS.

    (a) In General- Section 43 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

    `Sec. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises

    `(a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce--

    `(1) for the purpose of damaging or disrupting an animal enterprise; and

    `(2) in connection with such purpose--

    `(A) intentionally damages, disrupts, or causes the loss of any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, or any property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise;

    `(B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or

    `(C) conspires or attempts to do so;

    shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).

    `(b) Penalties-

    `(1) ECONOMIC DAMAGE- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes economic damage not exceeding $10,000 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

    `(2) SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR ECONOMIC DISRUPTION- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes economic damage or economic disruption exceeding $10,000 but not exceeding $100,000 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

    `(3) MAJOR ECONOMIC DAMAGE OR ECONOMIC DISRUPTION- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes economic damage or economic disruption exceeding $100,000 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    `(4) SIGNIFICANT BODILY INJURY OR THREATS- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes significant bodily injury to another individual or intentionally instills in another the reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

    `(5) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes serious bodily injury to another individual shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    `(6) DEATH- Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes the death of an individual shall be fined under this title and shall be punished by death or imprisoned for life or for any term of years.

    `(7) CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT- Any person who conspires or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the substantive offense.

    `(c) Restitution- An order of restitution under section 3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution--

    `(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense;

    `(2) the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense; and

    `(3) for any other economic damage, including any losses or costs caused by economic disruption, resulting from the offense.

    `(d) Definitions- As used in this section--

    `(1) the term `animal enterprise' means--

    `(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, research, or testing;

    `(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event; or

    `(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;

    `(2) the term `course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose;

    `(3) the term `economic damage' means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, or the loss of profits;

    `(4) the term `economic disruption'--

    `(A) means losses and increased costs that individually or collectively exceed $10,000, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; and

    `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;

    `(5) the term `serious bodily injury' means--

    `(A) injury posing a substantial risk of death;

    `(B) extreme physical pain;

    `(C) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or

    `(D) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and

    `(6) the term `significant bodily injury' means--

    `(A) deep cuts and serious burns or abrasions;

    `(B) short-term or nonobvious disfigurement;

    `(C) fractured or dislocated bones, or torn members of the body;

    `(D) significant physical pain;

    `(E) illness;

    `(F) short-term loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or

    `(G) any other significant injury to the body.

    `(e) Non-Preemption- Nothing in this section preempts any State law.'.

    (b) Conforming Amendment- Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `section 43 (force, violence and threats involving animal enterprises),' before `section 201 (bribery of public officials and witnesses)'.
    END

    ReplyDelete
  21. I doubt it tim. You missed the qualifications in your copy & paste...

    (1) the term “animal enterprise” means—

    (A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture, research, or testing;

    (B) a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or

    (C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dear Friends of the Victoria Taft Show and the 5th Listeners,
    You're very kind to populate this blog.
    The Schumachers did nothing to foment the anti fur protesters. If you call putting a sign in the window the reads "Protester Sale 50% off" or words to that effect incidiary then you're more in the pocket (heads)of the protesters than you know. The Schumachers, on one day for less than a half an hour, put up a sign that wasn't nice and could be construed as incindiary. While I realize it's convenient to use that as an excuse for all the bad and illegal behavior that occured before and after that, I don't buy it. Neither should you.
    You should take in a couple days of the protesters' antics and watch the Schumacher tapes.
    R=,your hatred is troubling. Yes, I know google operates blogger. Yes, I continue to use www.altavista.com as my chief search engine. You should too. You sound like you're an anti corporate type with a knee jerk reaction to anything big and successful so a boycott of google might be just what the doctor ordered for you. I, however, do not boycott things because they're successful. I'm not a fan of google because of the partisan decisions it makes regarding what are 'news' sites in its encoders/founders' eyes.
    And, again, you're wrong about the Terrorist Act. It would apply to the Schumachers.
    And, again, I'm told the Schumachers lawsuit will continue. In fact, their moving only buttresses their claims. But to be sure I'm getting in touch with their attorney to make sure moving doesn't interfere in any way with their standing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Victoria,
    You know I was not referring to the 50% off sign, when I mentioned wondering how much the Schumacher's contributed to the problem (I actually think the 50% off during protest sale idea is kind of funny). Statements were made to provoke the protesters. I do not know if the illegal acts of the protestors occurred before or after the provocation. I am sure the facts will come out in court.

    Lew,
    As far as my own bias goes, it is on the side of the animals; however I am not completely unbalanced. I did post something to another site, which had described the protests as vigils, indicating that the protestors needed to control their own behavior. (And I did this hours before this site even had the story).


    All the new law seems to do is increase the potential penalty for doing stuff which was already against the law. People can still protest, and give out information.
    If the nature of this information causes people to not buy the product, the protestors are not liable for this lost business.

    After everything I read last night, I might need to quit meat again. I was giving my boss a hard time about his sport fishing during our meeting this morning. I need to get this out of my head. I need to go find some lunch that does not include any tortured animals.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hatred?? Surely you jest. I only found it funny, that you boycott one arm while supporting the other. It's like protesting McDonald's fries as a tool of the devil while chewing on a Big Mac. Not as amusing as your complete lack of understanding of how Google actually works, but that's just the "geek elitiest" in me talking.

    And since you seem so convinced that the "Terrorist Act ... would apply to the Schumachers," tell me then which "animal enterprise" are they; a, b, or c?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think that, related to the new act, (A) applies.

    As far as boycotting Google, did that have something to do with the China thing?
    Taking a boycott to the point where one goes without a product or service they want is harder than just sticking to the boycott when there is an alternative.

    I don’t think that People boycott based on success. However, it is success that sometimes brings media attention to the practices people (like myself) might use as a reason to boycott. I might boycott Wal-Mart due to their labor practices. I likely know about their labor practices because they are big enough that someone felt it was worth the effort to uncover this and bring this to my attention.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think that, related to the new act, (A) applies.

    Shumachers are only a retailer. They do not "produce" the fur or fur items. Remember how all the "terrorist" haters have been asking why said protesters don't go after those who actually "make" the fur? Suddenly now we're going to claim they (Schumachers) are, for the benefit of litigation?

    As for Google, Victoria believes that the "management" at Google manipulates their search results to favor "liberal" news sources over "conservative" ones. If you can understand "why" George Bush is the first result when searching the term "utter failure" with Google, then you should be on the floor laughing right now by her assertions. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Coboble,
    I can't go down a rabbit trail with you that's been well trod upon again and again.
    I don't have time for do overs.
    Please check this stuff out then state your opinions but don't re-ask stuff we've already been over in previous postings. And no, I didn't know what sign you're referring to, but did address both signs. That you don't know their unlawful acts occured before and after the sign; that the protesters were being mocked by the sign that was up for less than a half an hour (as I remember it) because they were chanting that to the customers at Schumachers and they simply turned it around on them---well...if you don't know...don't post here.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Victoria, your hatred is troubling.

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Nothing like "boycotting" a business, but using their product for free. Blogger, a google product, is of course complementary but your use of it shows how you roll. At least have the dignity to buy your own service or go mooch off another. You probably are the same type of person that watches OPB, never donates, then complains that they never have any "KKKristian" programs you like. Conservatives? How does their brains work? I keep telling you that you need to have the Waldork Center put the botox in your skin wrinkles, not the wrinkles in your brain.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ahhh, the new air of civility promised by the left. Isn't it wonderful?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Note to lew; this is a wee blog. Don't go blowing anything out of proportion.

    Roger, while being a sarcastic ass is fun, your tact is wanting. Make your point, and avoid the cheap shots. In the world of Victoria's blog, a land of binary thinkers, you and I are going to be considered of the same cloth. That means I have to pick up the slack trying to make you (crazy liberal) look good. I'm not a miracle worker, so cut me some slack.

    ReplyDelete
  32. note to bs: I fully realize this blog to be "wee." However, as I post on blogs not so "wee," I do see this new promised air of civility touted by the newly elected and those stepping into majority leadership positions as a joke, considering comments made by leftists at all levels, even before they assume power.

    But then again, I'm sure it was all just another "botched joke."

    ReplyDelete
  33. Civility. Ahh yes, I forgot it's been only those you call "leftists" that have been un-civil for the past (?) years.

    I'd say "being more sensitive and referring to them as Jackasses" is a perfect example of civility, eh lew? I'll wait for you to climb down from that tall horse, but won't hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Lew,
    Thanks for the link to the article. Balance is good. Now I need a similar article related to dairy cows and poultry.

    r=bs,
    Are you talking about “miserable failure“ and why it brings up Bush‘s biography? The exploitable quirks in the ranking algorithm aside, Google does come up with sites the other engines do not, due to the depth of the crawl, giving it more pages in the index before it even does the ranking.

    Victoria,
    I didn’t bring up the google thing, I only asked. It seems others are willing to answer the question, and you can use your time for something more worth while. I thought you were sort of kidding when you made those comments on your radio show (related to Google’s bias against conservative bloggers). I remember you were having trouble posting videos when you made the comments.

    As far as not knowing if something is correct, we are all drawing conclusions based on some combination of the information we read combined with our bias. I have read conflicting views, and admit to not knowing who is telling the truth. Others may read one view, and think they know the truth. Others may read multiple views with such a strong bias that they think they know the truth. I am rarely (if ever) certain I know the truth. So If I may only post, when I am certain of the truth, than there will not likely be any more posts from me.
    (Which could be a good thing.)

    ReplyDelete
  35. coboble,

    Yes, "miserable failure" to be exact. Thanks for the clarification. And you get a giant thumbs-up for "getting Google."

    ReplyDelete
  36. Coboble,
    Sorry I was hard on you. Please forgive me.

    ReplyDelete
  37. It's just as well that the Schumachers are leaving. They don't belong in Portland anymore. I wish them luck and success wherever they go.

    We have to get rid of Randy Leonard too. How many public employee wells is he dipping into, anyway? What a waste of organic compounds, that.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Victoria
    Consider it Done.
    (I had to think about this, to make sure it was the truth before I posted :-).

    r=bs
    We might be able to convince Victoria that Google is not as biased as she thinks. Should we try?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Google is evil. They have a good search engine. But they're evil. In many, many ways. But their willingness to happily be a tool of censorship for totalitarian regimes around the world is the worst.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Google is evil. They have a good search engine. But they're evil. In many, many ways, but their willingness to happily be the tool of censorship for totalitarian regimes around the world is the worst.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Zeb
    That was why I asked if it was the China thing.
    That seemed like a reasonable reason to boycott the company.
    What I don't know is what other options Google had or considered.
    (Anyway, I don't think the blog owner wants us discussing google here, so am going to search the blogs for a discussion on the subject).

    ReplyDelete
  42. zeb,
    Why is Google evil? What exactly are the "many many ways?"

    Coboble,
    Once can not be convinced of something they do not wish to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Why is Google evil? What exactly are the "many many ways?"

    I already cited the main way Google is evil. They happily collude with totalitarian regimes like China to censor the Internet. That's the main way. There are several others. Let's just say that their algorithms aren't entirely honest.

    ReplyDelete
  44. zeb, you've explained nothing. Why did you waste your time writing a nothing response?

    ReplyDelete
  45. zeb, you've explained nothing. Why did you waste your time writing a nothing response?

    Seems that rather it's a matter of your lacking the cognitive heft to comprehend it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ahh zeb, first you claim there are "many many ways" that Google is evil, in addition to your disgust with their censorship in China. Now that you've been asked what these "many many ways" actually are, you've reduced yourself to a weak ad hominem.

    So, censorship in China, and (tin-foil hats on everyone) algorithms that "aren't entirely honest." Is that all or is there more?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ah grasshopper, "google" this: google bias

    See what you get back, read the first 50 or so of them, and then get back to me.

    And clarify for me how you are rationalizing, discounting, minimizing, and otherwise scoffing at the ChiCom's censorship to 1bil+ people on the planet, and google's giddy complicity in it. How are you doing that again? You kinda glided right over that one, little guy.

    And, pointing out the lack of cerebral heft where it is lacking is not ad hominem. It's truth in advertising with a little tough love mixed in. I know it hurts, but that's the deal. Okay? Deal with it. Now get back to work and, yes, I DO want hot sauce with that burrito.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Instead of providing answers to a question (which is in no way meant as a trap, trick, etc), you ask me to now research the ways Google are bias, using Google? If their algorithms aren't entirely honest, wouldn't those results be inaccurate? You suggest I do this, and still have the where-with-all to attack my "lack of cerebral heft?"

    And may I ask, how is it always with your type, that if one does not render an opinion, that person's opinion is different from yours?

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  50. It's not just the "terrorists" who don't want the Schumachers around. Feast on this quote:

    As Fred Bruning, president of CenterCal (which owns the upscale shopping center Bridgeport Village), told Willamette Week, "That's not a tenant we want to have on our property because I'd be one of the protesters, probably."

    ReplyDelete
  51. In case you don't know, which is possible since your understanding of this situation is dated, limited and biased, the Schumachers were hoping to move their business to the Bridgeport Village Shopping Center...where, it turns out, they are NOT welcome. Because *GASP* the prez also has moral objections to fur.

    ReplyDelete