As do I, but I can see the difference between someone who has actually espoused hatred being called out on it, and the ramblings of racist assholes bored on the internet.
Your logic, while noble, doesn't apply to the question I asked.
Wow. You just can't stop. Please show the evidence where they specifically chose to allow this, and for the reasons you are purporting. Please. Just show some evidence. Anything. Heck, for any of your claims.
By your stupid logic, if Santorum's website was absolutely terrible (which it is), Google should not index that, as it's hurting a candidate through inaction. By your logic Santorum's name should be scrubbed from the internet because he's his own worst enemy.
Can't you see your made-up retardo logic is just that - illogical.
What the fuck is wrong with you?? Stop making stuff up! The rational world relies on evidence, so put up or shut up. The stuff you pulled out your ass (which may or may not be covered in santorum) does not count as evidence.
Loosely related? Santorum hates sodomy. He hates it. He's said so. He also hates gay people. So we get a gay awesome journalist making a site that redefines Santorum's name into a noun referencing a direct side-effect of one of his most obvious bugbears. That is a classic example of satire. Savage couldn't engage in satire if he wasn't given the fuel, and he (rightly) can't sit by and let this Santorum bigot continue to spew his ignorant hate unchallenged. Savage is just showing everyone what a complete asshat Santorum is, and it's working a charm.
Your logic is ridiculous. Are you from the 1730s? You have benefited personally from safety net schemes, although you seem to not realise it. That's what makes people like you screaming and throwing your self-entitled toys out of your prams. Here's a hint: if you don't want to look like an 8 year old, actually research what you're talking about before showing everyone just how ignorant, arrogant, and woefully short-sighted you are.
?? Obama hasn't cut funding for science in general. If you'd actually read the articles you purport to have, you'd know this. And yes, it's very hard to fix a financial meltdown in a few years, especially lacking all the regulation Bush didn't like. But it's pointless even trying to discuss something with you, judging by your moronic assertion that people pointing out your ignorance are apologists.
You should read the article, but then you'd have to stop mindlessly bitching about things Obama hasn't done. Damn you're funny. Obama's pledged far more support towards scientific research than you seem to even be aware of, and yet here you are, bleating away like some idiotic child copying his equally-idiotic parents.
And space telescopes tell us more about physics. "technology readily-usable here" is not the only metric one should pay attention to when comparing various proposals.
I'm sure you think you do. Normal people, when trying to figure out how to fix something, don't just look at their own experiences (or what people have told them), but actually collect data and work on that. How you are confusing your own biased existence with that of everyone else's is actually rather troubling. But given your age, no wonder.
What about the people who use welfare to get back on their feet and become productive members of society again? I guess they don't exist in your Randtopia.
Put anyone in the White House and it'd be just as much of a clusterfuck. The real disappointment is how fucking stupid US politics has become. It's embarrassing. From the declaration of independence to the current shit-pie? What a fall.
True, but if Comedy Central could air an ad that would advertise something with a very, very high probability of being what the viewer would buy, then they could air far fewer ads, and instead of a 30 minute show being 22 minutes long, they would be 29 minutes. Current TV advertising is scatter-gun in nature - it's trying everything it can to get a hit, but because it's being fired off blind, using arbitrary things such as "Comedy Central" and "Lifetime" to gauge exactly what any given viewer would prefer, which given the content of your average Wal*Mart, seems somewhat incomprehensible.
TL;DR Targeted ads are the most efficient ads, cause far fewer false hits and far more positive hits, and provide a greater return of investment to advertisers and carriers, so fewer ads are needed.
Because no country, like no man, is an island. Our economies depend on those countries, albeit usually indirectly, but in very real ways. Raw materials, labour, shipping, produce, you name it. Plus there's the benefit of helping 30+ million people not die in agony and leave their similarly-afflicted children to a life of abject hell. Surely you can accept that if the world was a better place to live in for everybody, it would be a better place to live in. I've never seen a terrorist movement born from well-fed, safe, healthy people, but plenty of allies.
Accidents happen even to the most careful people. Either society pays a few bucks now, or tens of thousands for the next 18 years, plus however long their more-likely jail sentences are. It's financial and medical insanity to deny these things. Just ask the doctors, who know a lot more about the societal impact of these things than you clearly do.
Tou-fucking-ché. It's comparable to someone who likes Dodges getting upset that Ford brought out a new car. It makes no sense - they can still buy a Dodge.
The thing Santorum is being criticized over relates directly to the derogatory term used by Savage. Santorum doesn't like buttsex, so a definition was chosen which deliberately highlights this area of contention, and is shocking enough to make people pay attention. Fair enough if Dan Savage had a problem with Santorum over some tax returns he filed back in 2002, that wouldn't make sense, but calling out a homophobe in a way that makes homophobes uncomfortable is fucking GENIUS, hence the site being ranked so highly.
We were dragged down the "immature road" the moment this Santorum jackass decided the Bible was fo' reals. He and his hate-filled views are to blame for this, no-one else.
Your "political spectrum" is already sullied beyond repair when assholes like this Santorum jerk are strutting around calling swathes of people evil and when someone gets upset at that, they are vilified by people like you. That's fucked up, but as the language wasn't too off-kilter I guess that's fine by your bizarro logic.
On the contrary, quite the opposite. I didn't choose the words "vile and childish" to describe the spreadingsantorum.com site, I quoted them from the person to whom I was replying.
Your thought experiment is actually an exercise in creative writing, as you have nothing to base that assertion on other than your imagination. It might happen that way, it might not, but to claim one or the other is clearly farcical.
Dan Savage can't help it if his website is tooled up to be more search-engine-friendly than Santorum's. Suggesting that someone step in and arbitrarily rationalise the order of search results seems ridiculously disproportionate when Santorum has the tools to do it himself if he simply stopped pissing off so many people the world over with his childish, ignorant comments and dubious moral standing.
There's fraudulent page-rank abuse, and then there's simply popular, which is what Savage's site is. You can check Alexa.com and see for yourself.
I guess Wikipedia are in on it too, as their site ranks higher than Santorum's own, too. Face it: Santorum started a fight in a medium with people far more knowledgeable about said medium, and is getting his ass handed to him. That's his problem, surely, and no-one else's. Expecting Google to rush around picking up his trash for him is ridiculous.
He's against all kinds of anal sex, and hates gay folks. That's why said definition was chosen, as it would piss him off. And it seems to have worked. He wasn't compared to said faecal matter because of his stance on the economy or immigration. Try to keep up.
And I've yet to see Santorum engage in anything even close to rational discourse and argument. Screaming that gays are bad because some fucking ages-old, clearly nonsensical book tells him so?? That's rational to you? And you call me dense!
Slashdot Mirror
As do I, but I can see the difference between someone who has actually espoused hatred being called out on it, and the ramblings of racist assholes bored on the internet.
Your logic, while noble, doesn't apply to the question I asked.
Wow. You just can't stop. Please show the evidence where they specifically chose to allow this, and for the reasons you are purporting. Please. Just show some evidence. Anything. Heck, for any of your claims.
By your stupid logic, if Santorum's website was absolutely terrible (which it is), Google should not index that, as it's hurting a candidate through inaction. By your logic Santorum's name should be scrubbed from the internet because he's his own worst enemy.
Can't you see your made-up retardo logic is just that - illogical.
What the fuck is wrong with you?? Stop making stuff up! The rational world relies on evidence, so put up or shut up. The stuff you pulled out your ass (which may or may not be covered in santorum) does not count as evidence.
Loosely related? Santorum hates sodomy. He hates it. He's said so. He also hates gay people. So we get a gay awesome journalist making a site that redefines Santorum's name into a noun referencing a direct side-effect of one of his most obvious bugbears. That is a classic example of satire. Savage couldn't engage in satire if he wasn't given the fuel, and he (rightly) can't sit by and let this Santorum bigot continue to spew his ignorant hate unchallenged. Savage is just showing everyone what a complete asshat Santorum is, and it's working a charm.
Your logic is ridiculous. Are you from the 1730s? You have benefited personally from safety net schemes, although you seem to not realise it. That's what makes people like you screaming and throwing your self-entitled toys out of your prams. Here's a hint: if you don't want to look like an 8 year old, actually research what you're talking about before showing everyone just how ignorant, arrogant, and woefully short-sighted you are.
?? Obama hasn't cut funding for science in general. If you'd actually read the articles you purport to have, you'd know this. And yes, it's very hard to fix a financial meltdown in a few years, especially lacking all the regulation Bush didn't like. But it's pointless even trying to discuss something with you, judging by your moronic assertion that people pointing out your ignorance are apologists.
I guess so, otherwise he doesn't have much of a point...
You should read the article, but then you'd have to stop mindlessly bitching about things Obama hasn't done. Damn you're funny. Obama's pledged far more support towards scientific research than you seem to even be aware of, and yet here you are, bleating away like some idiotic child copying his equally-idiotic parents.
s/Barack Obama/George W. Bush/
Please at least try to remember who spunked the deficit up the wall and caused the economic crisis. Hint: it all started a long time before 2008.
And space telescopes tell us more about physics. "technology readily-usable here" is not the only metric one should pay attention to when comparing various proposals.
I'm sure you think you do. Normal people, when trying to figure out how to fix something, don't just look at their own experiences (or what people have told them), but actually collect data and work on that. How you are confusing your own biased existence with that of everyone else's is actually rather troubling. But given your age, no wonder.
It's called the Weberwebs, and it's awesome.
What about the people who use welfare to get back on their feet and become productive members of society again? I guess they don't exist in your Randtopia.
Put anyone in the White House and it'd be just as much of a clusterfuck. The real disappointment is how fucking stupid US politics has become. It's embarrassing. From the declaration of independence to the current shit-pie? What a fall.
True, but if Comedy Central could air an ad that would advertise something with a very, very high probability of being what the viewer would buy, then they could air far fewer ads, and instead of a 30 minute show being 22 minutes long, they would be 29 minutes. Current TV advertising is scatter-gun in nature - it's trying everything it can to get a hit, but because it's being fired off blind, using arbitrary things such as "Comedy Central" and "Lifetime" to gauge exactly what any given viewer would prefer, which given the content of your average Wal*Mart, seems somewhat incomprehensible.
TL;DR Targeted ads are the most efficient ads, cause far fewer false hits and far more positive hits, and provide a greater return of investment to advertisers and carriers, so fewer ads are needed.
Because no country, like no man, is an island. Our economies depend on those countries, albeit usually indirectly, but in very real ways. Raw materials, labour, shipping, produce, you name it. Plus there's the benefit of helping 30+ million people not die in agony and leave their similarly-afflicted children to a life of abject hell. Surely you can accept that if the world was a better place to live in for everybody, it would be a better place to live in. I've never seen a terrorist movement born from well-fed, safe, healthy people, but plenty of allies.
Accidents happen even to the most careful people. Either society pays a few bucks now, or tens of thousands for the next 18 years, plus however long their more-likely jail sentences are. It's financial and medical insanity to deny these things. Just ask the doctors, who know a lot more about the societal impact of these things than you clearly do.
Fine, but to pin Bush's first two terms on Obama is clearly nonsensical.
Tou-fucking-ché. It's comparable to someone who likes Dodges getting upset that Ford brought out a new car. It makes no sense - they can still buy a Dodge.
The thing Santorum is being criticized over relates directly to the derogatory term used by Savage. Santorum doesn't like buttsex, so a definition was chosen which deliberately highlights this area of contention, and is shocking enough to make people pay attention. Fair enough if Dan Savage had a problem with Santorum over some tax returns he filed back in 2002, that wouldn't make sense, but calling out a homophobe in a way that makes homophobes uncomfortable is fucking GENIUS, hence the site being ranked so highly.
We were dragged down the "immature road" the moment this Santorum jackass decided the Bible was fo' reals. He and his hate-filled views are to blame for this, no-one else.
Your "political spectrum" is already sullied beyond repair when assholes like this Santorum jerk are strutting around calling swathes of people evil and when someone gets upset at that, they are vilified by people like you. That's fucked up, but as the language wasn't too off-kilter I guess that's fine by your bizarro logic.
On the contrary, quite the opposite. I didn't choose the words "vile and childish" to describe the spreadingsantorum.com site, I quoted them from the person to whom I was replying.
Your thought experiment is actually an exercise in creative writing, as you have nothing to base that assertion on other than your imagination. It might happen that way, it might not, but to claim one or the other is clearly farcical.
Dan Savage can't help it if his website is tooled up to be more search-engine-friendly than Santorum's. Suggesting that someone step in and arbitrarily rationalise the order of search results seems ridiculously disproportionate when Santorum has the tools to do it himself if he simply stopped pissing off so many people the world over with his childish, ignorant comments and dubious moral standing.
There's fraudulent page-rank abuse, and then there's simply popular, which is what Savage's site is. You can check Alexa.com and see for yourself.
I guess Wikipedia are in on it too, as their site ranks higher than Santorum's own, too. Face it: Santorum started a fight in a medium with people far more knowledgeable about said medium, and is getting his ass handed to him. That's his problem, surely, and no-one else's. Expecting Google to rush around picking up his trash for him is ridiculous.
He's against all kinds of anal sex, and hates gay folks. That's why said definition was chosen, as it would piss him off. And it seems to have worked. He wasn't compared to said faecal matter because of his stance on the economy or immigration. Try to keep up.
And I've yet to see Santorum engage in anything even close to rational discourse and argument. Screaming that gays are bad because some fucking ages-old, clearly nonsensical book tells him so?? That's rational to you? And you call me dense!
So you think racist images are on par with a site lampooning a hate-drenched moron who's running for president? Really? Great logic, Sparky!