General discussion

Locked

Rick Santorum's Google problem

By AV . ·
Tags: Off Topic
Rick Santorum is running for President of the US, but his Google search results leave a lot to be desired in a candidate. Just Google his name and you'll see what I mean. I sort of feel sorry for the guy.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/tech/web/santorum-google-ranking/index.html

Google will not remove those results either, saying that its up to Santorum to get the results removed. Thats not going to happen. I think he might have to live with this - forever. I guess the moral of this story is payback is a b*tch.

AV

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

82 total posts (Page 3 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Just for clarification; Take Two.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to An example of left-wing m ...

you're commenting on the Rick Savage contest, not Google's search results, right?

I originally posted this question in the wrong place. Thanks to AV for pointing that out. It was intended for Max.

Collapse -

I issue a challenge to you, AV

by maxwell edison In reply to Rick Santorum's Google pr ...

Find - and post - the EXACT words Rick Santorum said in that 2003 interview with the AP. Not just excerpts, but the ENTIRE CONTEXT. You will find that this is an example of a pound of lies being extracted from an ounce of truth.

It was payback for what he said?" Did you really say that?

The WORST CASE SCENARIO should have resulted in respectfully agreeing to disagree.

Disclaimer: I am not a Rick Santorum supporter. In fact, I actually disagree with him in this particular issue, but I recognize the politics of personal destruction when I see it.

You, AV, are excusing said politics of personal destruction - forgetting about the alternative option to respectfully agree to disagree.

You, AV, see a headline, and then proceed to react in a knee-jerk manner. You couldn't care less about all the facts - or misreporting of the facts - surrounding said headline.

I disagree with Santorum regarding what he said, but I would never attack him in a vile and vulgar manner like Savage did. But you are apparently an apologist for Savage, since you make excuses for it.

It was "payback for what he said?" Did you really say that?

You, AV, apologize for the left so often, it's enough to make a reasonable person want to throw-up.

There's NO EXCUSE for that vulgar crap. NONE. ZERO. Go ahead and make excuses, AV.

Collapse -

I posted the CNN article

by AV . In reply to I issue a challenge to yo ...

In it, there was a link to what Santorum told the Associated Press in 2003 that lead to Santorum's problem. http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+Excerpt+from+Santorum+interview&expire=&urlID=6086103&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm&partnerID=1660

I guess you didn't click on the link in the article, so here is the excerpt of what Rick Santorum said that you missed. You're just so ready to pounce, aren't you Max? You wouldn't give a rats a$$ if this story was about a Dem.

Who in politics today respectfully agrees to disagree?

AV

Collapse -

Keep defending Dan Savage, AV

by maxwell edison In reply to I posted the CNN article

I'm done with this discussion.

Collapse -

That wasn't the point of what I posted

by AV . In reply to Keep defending Dan Savage ...

The point was that this could happen to anyone and how do you clear your name if Google won't get rid of negative info about you. They leave it up to you to get rid of the negative posts and its unlikely that you can convince the people that posted the negative comments about you to take it down.

AV

Collapse -

"I'm done with this discussion"

by santeewelding In reply to Keep defending Dan Savage ...

Is there anything reliable that comes from you, other than the discomfort of a corn cob up your ***?

Collapse -

Hey, Ansu,

by CharlieSpencer In reply to "I'm done with this ...

remember what I said about some posts being self-evident?

Collapse -

Hm?

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Hey, Ansu,

Did I miss something? ?

Jest aside, as meteoric as his choice of words often is, I have yet to see Santeewelding post with malicious intent. Unlike Maxwell.
Maxwell fidgets and squirms and tries to hurt people at odd intervals.
Santee just seems to use a minimalist Haubitzer for (even) the little things.
Santee has a well-documented feature (complete with metaphorical death threats).
Maxwell is just buggy as all get out.

That's what I have seen, anyway.
Maybe he used to be better, or maybe he just used to get away with claiming to be better, what the fluck do I care?

This is not me trying to be hurtful, I am simply carrying out my promise to Maxwell, I will be on his case for a week, with brutal, unmalicious honesty - every time he sees fit to slander me.
If he stops talking about me, I'll stop talking about him.
I think that's more than fair.

Collapse -

Is that really the best use of your time and energy?

by JamesRL In reply to Hm?

It won't accomplish anything useful.

You might as well tilt at windmills.

Accept the fact that you disagree, and move on.

Collapse -

Disagreement is one thing, easily accepted.

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Hm?

But to allow a person to periodically slander me is to set a dangerous precedent.
If my peers were to go on record that he is in the wrong in slandering me, that would settle the matter on my account, and I could allow him his foolishness. I think the same rule should apply to him as was brought to bear on me above.
Let me be clear, a civil tone is what I would prefer. I do not like having to make a ruckus. However, if civility fails me, then it won't protect my adversary, either.

Back to After Hours Forum
82 total posts (Page 3 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums