T1B

bradhusker wrote:I can fuckin wait!!!!!!!!!!!

poptart wrote:I seriously question whether this will work out well for Rick Perry.

He speaks slower than George Bush, often struggles to find words, and sounds a lot like GW.

Perry lacks charisma.
He honestly comes across as a slighly advanced Fred Thompson.

We'll see much more of this from Perry in the debates.
Slow, stammering, searching for words...

poptart wrote:Perry sucks, yes.
You're right on that score, mr huskerdo.

smackaholic wrote:how can a guy that smart do something so fukking dumb?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:how can a guy that smart do something so fukking dumb?

Because he's not that smart. Do you have to have everything explained to you?

smackaholic wrote:watch johnson.

bradhusker wrote:WOW, I can fuckin wait!!!!!!!!!!!

CNN) -- Former U.S. Sen. and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has a well-known Google problem.

For the uninitiated, if you Google Santorum's name, the first result you'll probably get is not his personal website but a fake definition of "santorum," a sexual byproduct that's a bit too graphic to talk about in detail here. (Of course, you can Google him and easily find out.)

We'll get into how that all happened in a second, but here's what's new: On Tuesday, the socially conservative politician lashed out at Google, saying the company could get rid of the sexual references to his name on the search results if it wanted to -- and perhaps would do so if he were a Democrat.

"I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they'd get rid of it," he told Politico. "If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country."

He continued: "To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can't handle, but I suspect that's not true."

Santorum contacted Google and asked the company about the issue, Politico said.

In an e-mail to CNN, a Google spokeswoman said, "Google's search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Web. Users who want content removed from the Internet should contact the webmaster of the page directly. Once the webmaster takes the page down from the Web, it will be removed from Google's search results through our usual crawling process."

She added: "We do not remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines."

Santorum is just the latest to gripe at Google over how it ranks search results. The CEO of Yelp posted a blog Tuesday saying that Google purposefully ranks its own products -- like Google Places -- above its competitors.

"We believe Google has acted anti-competitively in at least two key ways: by misusing Yelp review content in their competing Places product and by favoring their own competing Places product in search results," Yelp's Jeremy Stoppelman wrote.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt was scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday about similar antitrust complaints.

The lewd "santorum" definition popped up after the former senator compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality in a 2003 interview with The Associated Press:

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality," he said. "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

That angered gay rights supporters, including gay podcast host and sex columnist Dan Savage, who launched a campaign for his listeners to redefine Santorum's name. Savage created a website to promote the winning definition (again, you'll have to search for that elsewhere), and enough bloggers linked to it that the spoof site eventually eclipsed Santorum's campaign website in search rankings.

Danny Sullivan, who writes at the blog SearchEngineLand, notes that Google has a history of being hands-off when it comes to these controversies, regardless of the politics or sensitivities involved:

"Google is loathe to touch its results in any way, shape or form. That's because if it does intervene in any way, there's some interest group that will immediately claim a bias. Way back in 2004, an anti-Jewish web site started ranking in Google's top results for 'Jew.'

"Despite Google co-founder Sergey Brin being Jewish and himself disgusted with the result, it stood. Intervention, when Google's ranking algorithms had spoken, was seen as harmful to user trust," Sullivan writes.

In December 2009, when racist images of first lady Michelle Obama popped to the top of Google search results, the company took a similar free-speech stance.

"We have a bias toward free expression," Google spokesman Scott Rubin said at the time. "That means that some ugly things will show up."

Still, Google has removed offensive content from searches, usually by making changes to how its overall search equations function.

In 2007, for example, a change to Google's search algorithm stopped the search term "miserable failure" from directing Internet users to pages about former president George W. Bush, according to SearchEngineLand.

It's worth noting that some of these Internet weirdnesses have shown up on other search engines, too, not just on Google.

poptart wrote:Perry sucks, yes.
You're right on that score, mr huskerdo.

I'm not sure how that equates to Romney being THE MAN all of a sudden.
And especially to an alleged conservative voter.

I know it's hard to believe, but you're not making a lick of sense here, brad.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:how can a guy that smart do something so fukking dumb?

Because he's not that smart. Do you have to have everything explained to you?

The Seer wrote:Romney/Cain - I would like their chances against Obamao/Biden.

Perry is extremely to the far right. DO YOU GET IT NOW?

poptart wrote:

Perry is extremely to the far right. DO YOU GET IT NOW?

Is he?

Is that based on his policy of giving ILLEGALS ---> in-state tuition rates, or based on his issuing of an executive order to MANDATE that girls receive the Gardasil vaccination prior to entering 6th grade?

You know, those FAR RIGHT policies. lol


Perry and Romney are both phony baloney bullshitters.

No thanks.

HEY pop? not everybody is rank and file on every single issue, does that make sense??
Sure I like some of what Ron Paul is about, HOWEVER, he also says some pretty looney stuff as well.
You can say Romney is baloney all yopu want, BUT, it just shows me how short sighted and narrow minded you really are.

Sorry pal, BUT, Mitt Romney is an experienced leader, a proven executive with tremendous business experience. Ron Paul is a great republican, but, sometimes he goes off on weird tangents, like when he made that Bruno movie, and was alone in a hotel room with bruno, unaware that bruno wanted him to get naked and have gay sex with him.

I am usually dead on about these matters, and MITT will slowly settle in as the front runner. AND, mark my words, When Mitt and Barack meet for their first of 3 debates? Romney will make Barrry look like opie with downs syndrome.

It will be a turkey shoot for Mitt against Barry.

Newt is clearly the sharpest of the bunch, but Ron Paul is the only one there who REALLY has it as a mission to do his very best to give the people liberty.

I won't vote for Paul, but he's the only one I see there who could be worthy of a vote.

poptart wrote:Do you know happen to know what the mormons think of balck people?

Hint: they're pretty much front pew in the mvscal church of love.

Bizzarofelice wrote:Things Mitt Romney believes in:
--magical golden plates were found in upstate New York
--blacks are second class citizens who can't get into Momo heaven
--anything the public wants him to believe if it will further his career. he has absolutely no principles.

bradhusker wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:Things Mitt Romney believes in:
--magical golden plates were found in upstate New York
--blacks are second class citizens who can't get into Momo heaven
--anything the public wants him to believe if it will further his career. he has absolutely no principles.

wow Bizz, see, the shit you just spewed? it didnt stick, TEFLON!!

In fact, those talking points you listed? I am way more inclined to believe thats a portrait of you, and not mitt.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

bradhusker wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:Things Mitt Romney believes in:
--magical golden plates were found in upstate New York
--blacks are second class citizens who can't get into Momo heaven
--anything the public wants him to believe if it will further his career. he has absolutely no principles.

wow Bizz, see, the shit you just spewed? it didnt stick, TEFLON!!

In fact, those talking points you listed? I am way more inclined to believe thats a portrait of you, and not mitt.

I'm not Mormon. He is.

And the constant flip-flopping, you'll hear more about it now that Perry is against the wall.

bradhusker wrote:
Romney, on the other hand, is very presidential, very reagan like, very handsome, AND, this is HUGE,

Bizzarofelice wrote:Things Mitt Romney believes in:
--blacks are second class citizens who can't get into Momo heaven

bradhusker wrote:If Herman can turn Godfathers pizza around, just think what he can do for the country?

bradhusker wrote: He is the "everyman",.....
who actually cares for the common man.

smackaholic wrote:Don't look now, but Herman is making a move.

mvscal wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Don't look now, but Herman is making a move.

No, he isn't. Straw polls a joke.

Martyred wrote:Is Godfathers Pizza any good?