2012 Presidential Campaign - Obama vs. Romney

[carlfense]

Comish? Can you back up your claims?

 

http://www.huskerboa...post__p__953414

Well, first of all (and I know this will probably lead to a whole new thread) google is widely acknowledged as extremely biased to the left, so I don’t put total credence in it’s search results.

 

See:

 

http://cjv123.hubpag...es-Liberal-Bias

 

I remember arguing years ago with a work colleague (who although otherwise seemingly moderately intelligent, never-the-less held fast to inexplicable liberal talking points) about the google bias. He pointed me to a number of google results based on questions that had terms similar to “failure” and the TOP of the google result page invariably had George Bush as the first answer. Gee, I’m sure when researching nouns most people would gravitate immediately to GB. (now if the response had been Jimmy Carter, they might be on to something).

You are trying to show that Google is biased by linking a blog post with a grammatical error in the title? Yikes. Feel free to use the search engine of your choice to research your fake quote.

 

(Also, I laughed out loud when I realized that you probably googled "google liberal bias" to find that link. See here: http://bit.ly/IRhJ2X)

 

But to the immediate question, I probably erred in putting direct quotes around my statement, but it was certainly the intent of his mutterings in the aftermath of the November 2010 debacle for the Dems

Prove it. If it was "certainly the intent" then it shouldn't be difficult at all.

 

 

 

 

This is the problem with the political discourse in our country. Bold (and false!) assertions are made as if they were incontrovertibly true . . . and fake quotes are defended as certainly accurate. Then when someone bothers to point out the lies the mistaken party responds with a blog post about how Google is Liberal and Bias. [sic]

Speaking of political discourse, are you asserting that Google is not liberal and biased? Just asking for YOUR opinion.

No. I'm asserting that Google's search engine is a series of algorithms designed to provide sought information. YOU said it was biased and liberal. I'm awaiting proof before I can join you in the liberal biased Google conspiracy group. Hopefully that proof comes from a source with a title free of grammatical errors.

 

 

 

This is your GOP base, people. "Don't trust what you read on the Googles. Please return to Conservapedia for the truthiest information out there."

[Comish]

We can't afford any more Citizens United rulings.

Exactly. That's what's scary.

Also scary is the statement by Buzzy Ginsberg that emerging nations should NOT use the US constitution as a model.

Methinks if she finds it so reprehensible, maybe she out to recuse herself right out of her current position.

She said it was reprehensible? You aren't making things up again . . . are you? Because I'm familiar with the Egypt comment . . . but I certainly don't remember the word reprehensible.

 

Could you use whatever search engine that you find accessible to help me out? Thanks.

I did not say she used the word reprehensible. I did. I said that IF she finds it reprehensible, she should recuse herself.

[carlfense]

We can't afford any more Citizens United rulings.

Exactly. That's what's scary.

Also scary is the statement by Buzzy Ginsberg that emerging nations should NOT use the US constitution as a model.

Methinks if she finds it so reprehensible, maybe she out to recuse herself right out of her current position.

She said it was reprehensible? You aren't making things up again . . . are you? Because I'm familiar with the Egypt comment . . . but I certainly don't remember the word reprehensible.

 

Could you use whatever search engine that you find accessible to help me out? Thanks.

I did not say she used the word reprehensible. I did. I said that IF she finds it reprehensible, she should recuse herself.

Oh. So you are making things up again.

[Comish]

This is your GOP base, people. "Don't trust what you read on the Googles. Please return to Conservapedia for the truthiest information out there." (courtesy of Carlfence). Sorry, for some reason my reply kept repeating the .....quote numbers don't match error code and refused the post, so I copied this from an earlier response.

 

This is your LIBERAL base, people. "Only trust what you read on the AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, Google, and the mainstream media because it is unvarnished and pristine. By all means, NEVER trust anything that comes from an alternative source because they must prove they are unbiased whereas the traditional media gets has no such threshold"

[carlfense]

This is your GOP base, people. "Don't trust what you read on the Googles. Please return to Conservapedia for the truthiest information out there." (courtesy of Carlfence). Sorry, for some reason my reply kept repeating the .....quote numbers don't match error code and refused the post, so I copied this from an earlier response.

 

This is your LIBERAL base, people. "Only trust what you read on the AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, Google, and the mainstream media because it is unvarnished and pristine. By all means, NEVER trust anything that comes from an alternative source because they must prove they are unbiased whereas the traditional media gets has no such threshold"

Who are you to judge what the traditional media gets has?

[zoogs]

We can't afford any more Citizens United rulings.

Exactly. That's what's scary.

Also scary is the statement by Buzzy Ginsberg that emerging nations should NOT use the US constitution as a model.

Methinks if she finds it so reprehensible, maybe she out to recuse herself right out of her current position.

 

Is it possible (I have no idea) that she was saying the framework that worked for our country and was deeply rooted in the ideals of our founding fathers, might not be effective in a country with a completely different landscape and history? Or that while it has served us very well, it can't simply be lightly replicated and expect to have the same weight in a country without the necessary tradition to enable such a document to endure?

 

Seems like a big leap to suggest that because she says this, she finds it reprehensible.

[Comish]

We can't afford any more Citizens United rulings.

Exactly. That's what's scary.

Also scary is the statement by Buzzy Ginsberg that emerging nations should NOT use the US constitution as a model.

Methinks if she finds it so reprehensible, maybe she out to recuse herself right out of her current position.

 

Is it possible (I have no idea) that she was saying the framework that worked for our country and was deeply rooted in the ideals of our founding fathers, might not be effective in a country with a completely different landscape and history? Or that while it has served us very well, it can't simply be lightly replicated and expect to have the same weight in a country without the necessary tradition to enable such a document to endure?

 

Seems like a big leap to suggest that because she says this, she finds it reprehensible.

Now that is a well phrased argument.

Based on her rulings and commentary over the years, I have my doubts, but I'll give you credit for offering a credible alternative.

[carlfense]

Based on her rulings and commentary over the years, I have my doubts, but I'll give you credit for offering a credible alternative.

Which rulings, in particular, do you take issue with?

[Comish]

This is your GOP base, people. "Don't trust what you read on the Googles. Please return to Conservapedia for the truthiest information out there." (courtesy of Carlfence). Sorry, for some reason my reply kept repeating the .....quote numbers don't match error code and refused the post, so I copied this from an earlier response.

 

This is your LIBERAL base, people. "Only trust what you read on the AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, Google, and the mainstream media because it is unvarnished and pristine. By all means, NEVER trust anything that comes from an alternative source because they must prove they are unbiased whereas the traditional media gets has no such threshold"

Who are you to judge what the traditional media gets has?

I'm nobody special.

Just a guy worried about the direction of the country and simultaneously amazed at how many folks believe the media is truly even-handed in how they report things.

[Whistlebritches]

We can't afford any more Citizens United rulings.

Exactly. That's what's scary.

Also scary is the statement by Buzzy Ginsberg that emerging nations should NOT use the US constitution as a model.

Methinks if she finds it so reprehensible, maybe she out to recuse herself right out of her current position.

She said it was reprehensible? You aren't making things up again . . . are you? Because I'm familiar with the Egypt comment . . . but I certainly don't remember the word reprehensible.

 

Could you use whatever search engine that you find accessible to help me out? Thanks.

 

Out of curiosity and boredom at lunch I tried to look around and see if I could find any info about the liberal bias of google. I checked both Bing and duckduckgo and it really looks like there are two blogs posts about it, one on hubpage already linked and another on Newsbusters that's linked to from that same hubpage. Everything else I found is a bunch of hearsay on anecdotal evidence at best or asinine conspiracy theories (the CIA actually runs google) at worst.

 

Post your evidence if you've got it.

[Comish]

Based on her rulings and commentary over the years, I have my doubts, but I'll give you credit for offering a credible alternative.

Which rulings, in particular, do you take issue with?

 

It's the whole body of work.

I'd be hard-pressed to find many issues she and I would agree on.

[Comish]

We can't afford any more Citizens United rulings.

Exactly. That's what's scary.

Also scary is the statement by Buzzy Ginsberg that emerging nations should NOT use the US constitution as a model.

Methinks if she finds it so reprehensible, maybe she out to recuse herself right out of her current position.

She said it was reprehensible? You aren't making things up again . . . are you? Because I'm familiar with the Egypt comment . . . but I certainly don't remember the word reprehensible.

 

Could you use whatever search engine that you find accessible to help me out? Thanks.

 

Out of curiosity and boredom at lunch I tried to look around and see if I could find any info about the liberal bias of google. I checked both Bing and duckduckgo and it really looks like there are two blogs posts about it, one on hubpage already linked and another on Newsbusters that's linked to from that same hubpage. Everything else I found is a bunch of hearsay on anecdotal evidence at best or asinine conspiracy theories (the CIA actually runs google) at worst.

 

Post your evidence if you've got it.

google the word failure right now. The very first headline is George Bush and the White House.

[carlfense]

Based on her rulings and commentary over the years, I have my doubts, but I'll give you credit for offering a credible alternative.

Which rulings, in particular, do you take issue with?

 

It's the whole body of work.

I'd be hard-pressed to find many issues she and I would agree on.

So . . . which ones . . . ? You're familiar with her rulings, right?

[carlfense]

google the word failure right now. The very first headline is George Bush and the White House.

Ah. There's your proof.

 

Wowza. That's it?

[carlfense]

This is your GOP base, people. "Don't trust what you read on the Googles. Please return to Conservapedia for the truthiest information out there." (courtesy of Carlfence). Sorry, for some reason my reply kept repeating the .....quote numbers don't match error code and refused the post, so I copied this from an earlier response.

 

This is your LIBERAL base, people. "Only trust what you read on the AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, Google, and the mainstream media because it is unvarnished and pristine. By all means, NEVER trust anything that comes from an alternative source because they must prove they are unbiased whereas the traditional media gets has no such threshold"

Who are you to judge what the traditional media gets has?

I'm nobody special.

Just a guy worried about the direction of the country and simultaneously amazed at how many folks believe the media is truly even-handed in how they report things.

Who are these people? Do you think that I believe that?