[Troll]

Go to Google and do a search for "miserable failure." Or just click here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=miser...8&oe=UTF-8

[eklipse]

Time to edit the robots.txt file again at whitehouse.gov.

[lil'babykitten]

LOL!

[christ]

How _does_ google do that?

[davesimondotcom]

Funny.

Not as funny as French Military Victories in it's day, since that is a much less subjective term.

I would think that GWB has been anything but a failure. He said he'd pass tax cuts, he did. He said he'd pass education reform, he did. He said he'd pass medicare reform, he did. Where, exactly, has he failed?

You can agree or disagree with his policies, but you can't say he's failed at getting them accomplished.

(Not saying that you, specifically, are doing so, of course.)

[lil'babykitten]

:cough: War on Terror :cough:

[christ]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
...You can agree or disagree with his policies, but you can't say he's failed at getting them accomplished.

Mayhap its not pointing to his policies, but simply stating that _he_ is a failure. Not agreeing or implying, just asking.

[finboy]

Democrats don't use media or the Internet to manipulate people, right?

Kinda scary, too, that they've got to resort to complete misinformation and sneaky stuff just to get some kind of advantage. Maybe if they tried having an agenda that people could support they'd do better without all the underhanded tactics.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
:cough: War on Terror :cough:

:cough: Not one successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11:cough:



Two can play that game, lil'kit.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
Democrats don't use media or the Internet to manipulate people, right?

Kinda scary, too, that they've got to resort to complete misinformation and sneaky stuff just to get some kind of advantage. Maybe if they tried having an agenda that people could support they'd do better without all the underhanded tactics.

Just when I think you couldn't possibly be more ridiculously paranoid....

I'll be saving this post for the next time you accuse anyone of believing far-fetched conspiracy theories.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
:cough: Not one successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11:cough:

:cough: America's not the only country in the world :cough:

[BlackGriffen]

I find this rather funny.

You mean people actually listen to Dick Gephardt? (hint: calling Bush a "miserable failure" is his shtick)



BG

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
:cough: Not one successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11:cough:



Two can play that game, lil'kit.

You forgot the only successful bio-terrorism campaign conducted on American soil that I'm aware of.

From where I sit, Bush is 0 for 2 on the home front. Abroad, he's doing a helluva lot worse than that.

Do we count the DC sniper as terrorism?

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Just when I think you couldn't possibly be more ridiculously paranoid....

I'll be saving this post for the next time you accuse anyone of believing far-fetched conspiracy theories.

Some of the googled links cite connecting GWB and "miserable failure" in search engines as a political goal. There isn't any THEORY about conspiracy here, just a failed political ideology grasping at straws, and TRYING to generate FUD rather than having a coherent agenda. No theory necessary.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
Some of the googled links cite connecting GWB and "miserable failure" in search engines as a political goal. There isn't any THEORY about conspiracy here, just a failed political ideology grasping at straws, and TRYING to generate FUD rather than having a coherent agenda. No theory necessary.

So Democrats control Google and manipulate its search results in order to further their agenda?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Do we count the DC sniper as terrorism?

No, I would say not. That was just a psycho and his teen-age minion with a gun. There goal was to kill people for the sake of killing them, not force change threw the murder on innocents.

And to the best of my recollection, no one has ever taken credit for the anthrax attacks, so how can you say conclusively that it was terrorism?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
:cough: America's not the only country in the world :cough:

:cough: The US is the only country GWB is sworn to preserve and protect. :cough:

You should get that cough checked out, LBK...sounds like you could have broncitis or something...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So Democrats control Google and manipulate its search results in order to further their agenda?

That would explain the other such Google "funnies" such as the aformentioned "French Military Victories."

Oh, wait, no it wouldn't.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
No, I would say not. That was just a psycho and his teen-age minion with a gun. There goal was to kill people for the sake of killing them, not force change threw the murder on innocents.

And to the best of my recollection, no one has ever taken credit for the anthrax attacks, so how can you say conclusively that it was terrorism?

I wouldn't count the DC sniper myself, either.

No one claimed responsibility for 9/11, if you remember. In fact, most terror groups condemned it. Even the Taliban condemned it. OBL denied it publically, but said he was glad it happened. It wasn't until much later that there was serious corroborating evidence to link it to OBL. Even now, I believe they still use the phrase "alledged mastermind" when talking about Al'Queda officers. To this day, no one has claimed responsibility that I'm aware of.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So Democrats control Google and manipulate its search results in order to further their agenda?

It's possible. Scientologists do it more overtly all the time.

I don't know exactly how Google works, but basically when you link to a page it ups that page's popularity. Then, search results are pared down by words in the page, and basically by words in the page doing the linking as well. There are a lot of details I'm not sure of, but that's the gist of it.

So, yes, it is possible for a person who can afford a whole lot of servers (like the scientologists) or for just a large group of people to effect Google's results.

Although the people doing it would love for it to have an actual impact on Bush's electability, let's not kid ourselves, and I doubt that they do. For starters, the link is going the wrong way. To even have a chance at being damaging, they would need a "miserable failure" page to pop up at the top of a search for "George Bush."

I'm more inclined to believe that those doing the linking are doing it out of humor.

BlackGriffen

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
To this day, no one has claimed responsibility that I'm aware of.

9/11 was so inflamitory that I don't think anyone wants "credit."

But, keep in mind, if we're going into such details, then we could always bring up that Saddam was the one world leader that praised the attack. (But, of course, there's no direct connection.)

[davesimondotcom]

Another thought, would the hatred and fear of GWB exist if he truly was a failure?

I mean, aren't the people who hate and fear him hateful and fearful because he IS successful at getting his agenda accomplished? If he were a failure, they wouldn't give him a second thought.

Or is that too logical?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by finboy:
Democrats don't use media or the Internet to manipulate people, right?

Kinda scary, too, that they've got to resort to complete misinformation and sneaky stuff just to get some kind of advantage. Maybe if they tried having an agenda that people could support they'd do better without all the underhanded tactics.

Yeah, all those people who inadvertently type "miserable failure" into their browsers will be corrupted when they're led to the President's official website! People are always typing "miserable failure" into their browsers - I do it all the time. Don't ask me why, it just happens. Probably the result of some sort of vibe being generated by the Democratic National Committee's in-house ultra-low frequency soundwave generators.

But - hang on - don't they have it backwards? If they wanted to corrupt us, wouldn't they have it work the other way, i.e. type "President Bush" in your browser and be led to a "miserable failure" site?

Man, those Democrats sure are tricky - the whole world seems upside-down!

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Another thought, would the hatred and fear of GWB exist if he truly was a failure?

I mean, aren't the people who hate and fear him hateful and fearful because he IS successful at getting his agenda accomplished? If he were a failure, they wouldn't give him a second thought.

Or is that too logical?

"The man you hate, you look more like him every day..."

I don't fear him and I certainly don't hate him. I simply find a number of his administration's policies and actions deeply disturbing and troubling. There's an enormous distinction. Posterity will determine whether or not my concerns are justified.

I also believe that hate and fear are part of the fuel that propels the administration along the path they have chosen...

[Ayelbourne]

Sorry, I realised I didn't really address your question.

I think that, yes - his "success", at least in advancing his policies and agenda, is something that troubles me. The main reason is that I cannot fathom why more people haven't balked at said policies and agenda, why more people in the US in particular aren't reacting the same way. Maybe that means that the problem is with me, that I am the one who has the wrong idea about how the world could be, the wrong ideals about democracy, liberty and justice, the wrong beliefs about the right way to do things...

We'll see...

I don't feel crazy...

[theolein]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
9/11 was so inflamitory that I don't think anyone wants "credit."

But, keep in mind, if we're going into such details, then we could always bring up that Saddam was the one world leader that praised the attack. (But, of course, there's no direct connection.)

As far as I can remember (and no, I'm not excusing Saddam of anything) Saddam didn't praise the attacks. I think he said that he was sorry about all the dead but that the Americans had it coming to them. Mmmm..., I suppose one could construe that as praise if one tried.

[theolein]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You forgot the only successful bio-terrorism campaign conducted on American soil that I'm aware of.

From where I sit, Bush is 0 for 2 on the home front. Abroad, he's doing a helluva lot worse than that.

Do we count the DC sniper as terrorism?

To this day I am still amazed that people have managed to forget about this one as quickly as they did. I know I was one of those people who suspected that ex-military scientist, Stephan Hatfil, rightly or wrongly, but the fact remains that it happened after 9/11, the Anthrax was of US military research origin (Do a google please, don't flame me) and that the perpetrator was never caught.

I'm not going to get into the whole conspiracy theory stuff, but why exactly was this, potentially extremely dangerous perpetrator never caught, and why has almost everyone forgotten about it?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by theolein:
To this day I am still amazed that people have managed to forget about this one as quickly as they did. I know I was one of those people who suspected that ex-military scientist, Stephan Hatfil, rightly or wrongly, but the fact remains that it happened after 9/11, the Anthrax was of US military research origin (Do a google please, don't flame me) and that the perpetrator was never caught.

I'm not going to get into the whole conspiracy theory stuff, but why exactly was this, potentially extremely dangerous perpetrator never caught, and why has almost everyone forgotten about it?

I think I know why. Look at the victims:

• A postal worker
• A tabloid
• Democrats

Need I say more?



BG

P.S. At least I think that those were the victims.

[Troll]

Originally posted by christ:
How _does_ google do that?

Yes, come on. One of you clever techie people knows how this happens don't you? They surely don't hack into the Whitehouse page and put "miserable failure" into the keywords and what's this about reediting a file at Google?

Academic interest only of course

[lil'babykitten]

It's made the news now

[Logic]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
:cough: The US is the only country GWB is sworn to preserve and protect. :cough:

You should get that cough checked out, LBK...sounds like you could have broncitis or something...

How many terrorist attacks of 9/11 magnitude were there before? How many international terrorist attacks were there before 9/11 in the US? How many terrorist attacks have there been in the history of the US? How many of those happened during GWB's time to "preserve and protect"?

Perhaps LBK need to get that cough checked out, but it seems to me others need to get their heads checked

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
:cough: America's not the only country in the world :cough:

and now America is responsible for securing the other countries from terrorist attack? ha! If other countries got tough on terrorism--saudi arabia comes to mind--they might have more success in protecting their homeland from foreign terrorist attack.

your snipy comment was lame, lil'muslim'sympathising'kitten.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You forgot the only successful bio-terrorism campaign conducted on American soil that I'm aware of.

From where I sit, Bush is 0 for 2 on the home front. Abroad, he's doing a helluva lot worse than that.

Do we count the DC sniper as terrorism?

you manipulate and distort to promote your agenda. the dc sniper was domestic terrorism, but also a horrible crime of mass shootings. the bush policies and war on terror have unquestionably been directed at terrorist groups who are primarily composed of and supported by middle eastern, muslim extremist, and other foreign sources. You know that, yet you strike at Bush with these psuedo-arguments. You sacrifice objectivity for your own politics.

Try again later.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
and now America is responsible for securing the other countries from terrorist attack? ha! If other countries got tough on terrorism--saudi arabia comes to mind--they might have more success in protecting their homeland from foreign terrorist attack.

your snipy comment was lame, lil'muslim'sympathising'kitten.

Ah so the global war on terror is all for protecting the big US of A, **** every one else, right? As long as the victims of all the latest terrorist attacks-happening as a result of this failed WoT- are not American, it's alright? heh.

And SA has been cracking down on their problem with terrorism, for your information.

Oh and you're just lame, period.

[swrate]

Hilarious.
I wonder what other word/combination could bring up those same pages.
Maybe something positive too one never knows...
"A failure."
Maybe if Bush had dared make his Thanksgiving visit one year earlier, when he was invited, all this would not of happened.
o I need my head checked?
The totalitarian groups growing out of control, more opression, threats...leaders trying to find a balance.
while so much money is spent on weapons.

Is that what we want , people to be killing each other?
Radio Machete Propaganda

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Ah so the global war on terror is all for protecting the big US of A, **** every one else, right? As long as the victims of all the latest terrorist attacks-happening as a result of this failed WoT- are not American, it's alright? heh.

And SA has been cracking down on their problem with terrorism, for your information.

Yes, that's right. One of the things a country primarily provides is protection for their citizens. It isn't the US's responsibility to protect the world (though the US has done largely that for most of the last century -- you're welcome).

If SA is cracking down on terrorists, that's good news for SA. That means they are finally starting to take care of themselves, something every country should be done. Certainly it's better than spending your time railing against the US, sniping from the sidelines.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
Yes, that's right.

Thought so.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Thought so.

If the best you can manage is an out of context quote, I'm afraid you're doing your cause a disservice.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
If the best you can manage is an out of context quote, I'm afraid you're doing your cause a disservice.

You quoted me and said 'yes, that's right'.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:


You quoted me and said 'yes, that's right'.

No, I said:

Yes, that's right. One of the things a country primarily provides is protection for their citizens. It isn't the US's responsibility to protect the world (though the US has done largely that for most of the last century -- you're welcome).

If SA is cracking down on terrorists, that's good news for SA. That means they are finally starting to take care of themselves, something every country should be done. Certainly it's better than spending your time railing against the US, sniping from the sidelines.

[christ]

Originally posted by moki:
No, I said:

Yes, that's right. One of the things a country primarily provides is protection for their citizens. It isn't the US's responsibility to protect the world (though the US has done largely that for most of the last century -- you're welcome)...

Well, the best way of keeping the USA safe from foreigners is to eliminate foreigners. That is what us non-US citizens worry about, because that seems to be how GWB is going about business, one country at a time. Pick a country, allege links to (terrorism, WMD, whatever) and destroy the country. Start with unpopular countries, so that when you move on to less unpopular countries there is no comeback (you have set a precedent'). That is why some people don't consider your war-mongering to be an ideal situation.

And you haven't 'protected the world', you have 'protected your interests in the world', which is not quite the same thing. In fact, it is not the same thing at all. I don't see you protecting e.g. Chechnya from Russia. (or, OTOH, Russia from Chechnya)

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
Certainly it's better than spending your time railing against the US, sniping from the sidelines.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Not a personal attack.

Right, moki?

-s*

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
No, I said:.......

um......okaay

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Not a personal attack.

Right, moki?

I didn't intend it as a personal attack, no. Rather, it's a valid characterization of the situation, and it's also a truism. It's much easier to sit on the sidelines while someone else acts, and infinitely easier to criticize than it is to actually do

[moki]

Originally posted by christ:
Well, the best way of keeping the USA safe from foreigners is to eliminate foreigners. That is what us non-US citizens worry about, because that seems to be how GWB is going about business, one country at a time. Pick a country, allege links to (terrorism, WMD, whatever) and destroy the country.

I'm sorry you think that's what it is all about; I certainly don't believe that at all. Do you really believe that Iraq was a good little country, doing nothing wrong, and then big bad USA came along and kicked them in the teeth?

Start with unpopular countries, so that when you move on to less unpopular countries there is no comeback (you have set a precedent'). That is why some people don't consider your war-mongering to be an ideal situation.

I think war is a terrible thing. I personally have friends who are in Iraq, Afghanistan, and others who are slated to go there soon. I don't take any part of this situation lightly at all.

However, I also believe that inaction, complacency, and turning a blind eye to the status quo can be even more dangerous.

And you haven't 'protected the world', you have 'protected your interests in the world', which is not quite the same thing. In fact, it is not the same thing at all. I don't see you protecting e.g. Chechnya from Russia. (or, OTOH, Russia from Chechnya)

I'm sorry, are you saying that the USA didn't have a huge role in taking down three incredibly dangerous regimes in WWII? Are you saying the USA didn't protect South Korea from turning into the hellhole that DPRK is now? Are you saying that the US's umbrella of protection over Europe didn't allow Europe to rebuild after WWII, and keep Stalin and subsequent USSR leaders at bay?

If you're coming at it from a pessimistic point of view, sure, you can demonize anything. I simply find it rather astounding that you desire to see only the bad, and to read only evil into everything the US does.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
I didn't intend it as a personal attack, no. Rather, it's a valid characterization of the situation, and it's also a truism. It's much easier to sit on the sidelines while someone else acts, and infinitely easier to criticize than it is to actually do

Ah I see: maintain blind faith in the governments of the world or shut up.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Ah I see: maintain blind faith in the governments of the world or shut up.

You have an odd way of interpreting what I'm saying. I can't think of anywhere else in the world that has more cynicism towards their government than the US; it's part of our culture.

No, what I was saying was that it is much, much easier to act than to sit on the sidelines and criticize. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but the easy privilege of that position should be recognized as well.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
You have an odd way of interpreting what I'm saying. I can't think of anywhere else in the world that has more cynicism towards their government than the US; it's part of our culture.

No, what I was saying was that it is much, much easier to act than to sit on the sidelines and criticize. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but the easy privilege of that position should be recognized as well.

It was a very simple privilege to achieve: All it involved was NOT yelling "Banzai you ****ing terrorists" and bombing a bunch of innocents for false reasons.

And since that is the only really possible response to your stupid "sniping from the sidelines" comment, perhaps you could shut the polemic in future?

kthxbye.

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
It was a very simple privilege to achieve: All it involved was NOT yelling "Banzai you ****ing terrorists" and bombing a bunch of innocents for false reasons.

I find your mischaracterization of what occurred disturbing. Do you really believe that the US targeted innocents on purpose, as you imply?

I suppose the your way is simply to turn a blind eye to any leader, no matter how tyrannical, keep the UN neutered by inaction, and ensure good trade relations continue. I wonder if you would have supported such a stance during WWII, as Hitler rolled over Europe; many in the US did, at least initially.

What we came to realize is that isolationism allows problems to spiral out of control until the cost of correcting for inaction involves much more pain than is gained by turning a blind eye.

While I applaud Germans for desiring peace, I also believe Germany owes the US a huge debt. Not simply for WWII, and the Marshall plan, but for also keeping Stalin at bay at the end of WWII. Sadly, these things are soon forgotten, and the world moves forward, forgetting the debts and sacrifices, and repeating again the mistake of appeasement.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by moki:
I find your mischaracterization of what occurred disturbing. Do you really believe that the US targeted innocents on purpose, as you imply?

Uh yes! As soon as you decided the colateral damage was acceptable. You had even worked out an argument going somehow like: Saddam has killed X people last year but if we attack then only X-1 people will die in Iraq.

You did whar you had to to win that war. Civilians were obsticles that had to be overcome to reach the 'bad guys'. That is war. That is why nobody in their right mind supported it to begin with. Except Iceland and a number of other countries