You all must try this..

[reeds]

1. Go to www.google.com
2. Type in the word "failure"
3. DO NOT click search
4. Click "I'm Feeling Lucky" (the tab right next to Search)

Hey- I wonder why it does that? any ideas?

[u2sarajevo]

Could it be because the two guys that started Google are Democrats?

Huh..... I wonder.

[Usually Lurkin]

Googler insights into product and technology news and our culture.


Googlebombing 'failure'
9/16/2005 12:54:00 PM

Posted by Marissa Mayer, Director of Consumer Web Products
If you do a Google search on the word [failure] or the phrase [miserable failure], the top result is currently the White House’s official biographical page for President Bush. We've received some complaints recently from users who assume that this reflects a political bias on our part. I'd like to explain how these results come up in order to allay these concerns.
Google's search results are generated by computer programs that rank web pages in large part by examining the number and relative popularity of the sites that link to them. By using a practice called googlebombing, however, determined pranksters can occasionally produce odd results. In this case, a number of webmasters use the phrases [failure] and [miserable failure] to describe and link to President Bush's website, thus pushing it to the top of searches for those phrases. We don't condone the practice of googlebombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results, but we're also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up. Pranks like this may be distracting to some, but they don't affect the overall quality of our search service, whose objectivity, as always, remains the core of our mission.

[reeds]

I've always loved Google- Now I just LOVE it more....

[u2sarajevo]

In all fairness to Google, you can do a search for failure.. not pressing the "I'm feeling lucky" button and the second entry (meaning right behind Bush's bio) is Michael Moore's website. So the Googlebombing thing is probably true.

We should try to Googlebomb 'reeds' to go to http://www.tvparty.com/lostromper.html

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

[kg_veteran]

reeds - Click my sig. That's all I have to say.

[mavsman55]

The internet's pretty cool, huh?

Here, try this site!

Neato!

[reeds]

So you all agree- google is awesome...greatest search engine on the planet..and smart too! They nailed the definition of "Failure" didnt they?

[u2sarajevo]

As was explained by Google above, they did not "defene" failure. The result is due to a bunch of liberal websites linking the word failure to President Bush's biography.

But, yes, Google is very usefull.

[mavsman55]

To be honest, I think this is legitimate grounds for impeachment. I mean, if you type failure in google and Bush comes up at least once, then he's obviously doing something wrong. This is a travesty.

[reeds]

"The internet's pretty cool, huh?

Here, try this site!

Neato! "

That is the best you got mavman??!! TOO FUNNY..try this one...40% approval rating and dropping!!! hurts doesnt it? and just think..in the upcoming years all the republicans out of office..sure you got scoreboard now- but, those who laugh last laugh loudest..and I have this feeling that the Democrats will be laughing last..along with well over half the voting public who will no longer vote for a fraud, a joke, a LIE...

[dude1394]

I agree really cool. Try this...

1. Go to www.google.com
2. Type in the word "impeached"
3. DO NOT click search
4. Click "I'm Feeling Lucky" (the tab right next to Search)

Now this one is the true definition of failure.

[mavsman55]

and I have this feeling that the Democrats will be laughing last..along with well over half the voting public who will no longer vote for a fraud, a joke, a LIE...

Actually reeds, I'm not sure if you've ever looked this far ahead into the future, but I'm pretty sure that after a president's 2nd term, he's not allowed to run for the position again. You're right, we'll never vote for Bush again. Congratulations.

But, until then, regardless of how you flaming liberals think of him, Bush will be YOUR president for the next 3 years whether or not you like him. And no online survey will ever change that.

[reeds]

"agree really cool. Try this...

1. Go to www.google.com
2. Type in the word "impeached"
3. DO NOT click search
4. Click "I'm Feeling Lucky" (the tab right next to Search)

Now this one is the true definition of failure. "

ONE question DUDE- PLEASE please be honest.

Is the country is better shape now or when Clinton was in office. All around shape? I would love to hear your answer. Say what you want about slick willy- he had this country headed in the right direction. Oh, and please back it up with numbers..I can easily find numbers to justify my statement.. If failure means having the largest surplus in this countries history(reduced the deficit by 600 billion-first time the deficit went down 3 years in a row since Truman), adding jobs every year (250K average every month)- I could go on and on...ya SOME FAILURE CLINTON WAS...what a joke..

[dude1394]

Reeds...I am being completly honest. Bill Clinton spent 8 years presiding over a presidency and a country with little or no challenges. He did very little imo except for signing a welfare bill. He didn't get in the way of much and for that I'm grateful. I find it difficult to list anything of consequence he accomplished except welfare reform.

There was a tremendous peace dividend that was spent after the soviet union fell. I know, I was part of the re-allocation of resources from defense to consumer applications. There was a tremendous build-out of telcom and internet infrastructure. It was a decade of milk and honey. Everything was peachy keen, a really nice internet stock bubble that everyone was having a great time with.

However..Clinton although seeing (at least his policy statements say this) wasn't willing to take on hard issues that needed to be done. He believed that Iraq had WMD but paid lip service to doing anything about it. Except for throwing a few tomahawks at Iraq. He believed that Bin Laden and Al Queda were a direct threat to the US and did nothing about it. Except for again throwing some Tomahawks at a plant in Sudan. Some say a pharmacutical plant I don't know, but it was ineffective.

He pulled back from Somalia and was incompetent there. Emboldening Bin Laden. He had opportunities to capture or kill Bin Laden but like many, he didn't want to make a hard choice to take a hit. He could have killed the SOB but was worried about world-wide opinion moreso than getting a danger to our country. It's not like he didn't know about bin laden, he did.

He was an irrelevant president, who also decided to get blowjobs from an intern in the oval office, lie under grand jury about it, look at the american people in the eye and wag his finger and say with a straight lying face..."I did NOT have sex with that woman". If our politicians were not so partisan his ass would have been convicted and removed from office, he was unfit for office. His current rheteoric just re-enforces how unfit he was. We elected a snake-oil salesman to the presidency, thank goodness nothing happened during his failed presidency.

In his defence I will say that it would have been extraordinarily tough to do what needed to be done that early. There was no political will on the part of the american people to do the things that needed to be done, none. So even though it seems pretty obvious to me that he was a shallow man, I don't hold that much against him. And I still do not, except when he and his minions(this would include yourself [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] ), begin to try and re-write history about what we "thought" we knew about wmd, iraq, etc.
------------------------------

Now all of that being said. I don't know if dubya would have done much different than clinton with respect to bin laden and terrorism. I don't know as I don't claim to be prescient. I do think that a harder-line foreign policy was being developed by dubya, I believe I read that it was actually scheduled to be delivered in Sept 01..All of his advisers would imply that it would have been a much harder line. Cheny, rumsfeld, condi, powell...versus the folks that clinton had.

But after 9/11 Dubya decided that business as usual with respect to terrorism is not a winning strategy. That terrorism and radical muslims need to be faced and defeated, politically and militarily. He has been very upfront, gone to congress, gone to the UN, declared his intentions and did it. He hasn't just had rhetoric, he says what he means and means what he says. I think it's the right policy but it is certainly turning out to be harder than expected, no denying that. It actually underscores imo, HOW dangerous islamic terrorism is. It actually re-enforces (imo) Dubya's strategy of forceful confrontation rather than passive law-enforcement. They are proving to be a much more formidable foe than anyone thought, much more and it's a blessing that we have someone who has just as much spine and cajones as anyone in public office today.



Bush will not falter and will not retreat. He will go down as one of the most prescient and far-seeing presidents in my lifetime imo. Possibly greater than the great Renaldous Maximus. Only because he's had to actually deploy our forces and withstand the political pressure that has come with it.

[Usually Lurkin]

to reflect and condense what dude said, Clinton failed horribly in at least 2 areas
1) he failed to handle the increasing threat of terrorist attack
2) he convinced an entire generation of kids that oral sex is not sex, and is ok between acquaintances

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
to reflect and condense what dude said, Clinton failed horribly in at least 2 areas
1) he failed to handle the increasing threat of terrorist attack
2) he convinced an entire generation of kids that oral sex is not sex, and is ok between acquaintances

Not to mention

3) he convince an entire generation of kids that adultery is OK
4) he convinced much of the nation that it's not a crime to lie under oath in a court of law

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
to reflect and condense what dude said, Clinton failed horribly in at least 2 areas
1) he failed to handle the increasing threat of terrorist attack
2) he convinced an entire generation of kids that oral sex is not sex, and is ok between acquaintances

Not to mention

3) he convince an entire generation of kids that adultery is OK
4) he convinced much of the nation that it's not a crime to lie under oath in a court of law

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: LRB

Not to mention

3) he convince an entire generation of kids that adultery is OK
4) he convinced much of the nation that it's not a crime to lie under oath in a court of law

I was under the impression that perjury was a felony punishable by prison time. Where did he get off here?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

I was under the impression that perjury was a felony punishable by prison time. Where did he get off here?

He couldn't be tried in a regular court while he was president. Partisan based Democrat votes keep him from being removed from office by the Senate after the House impeached him. The Democrats tried to make out like it was all about the sex, instead of the Nation's highest law enforcement authority committing a felony. I guess if you're an important Democrat, perjury isn't against the law. It's just a crime for lesser people.

[dude1394]

Another french failure..