« Post Turtle | Main | 9th Circus Judge Alex Kozinski Maintained Obscene Website »

So we wingnuts believe that Barnes and Nobel are trying to convice a few random people that Obama is God?

That's just nuts.

I just tried this search, and guess what. Now B&N is trying to convince me that right-wing polygamist nutjob Warren Jeffs is God!

Why is Barnes and Nobel so evil?

I typed in "asshole president" and had to scroll through four Hillary or Al Gore books until I got to one about George W. Bush.

Such liberal bias!

Or maybe we wingnuts should stop seeing boogeymen behind every bush and get a life.

WRITE IN QUAYLE '08 -- HAS A REAL LIFE

Actually this is a version of the 'Google Bomb.'

The Troll in post (1) knows this. The big Google Bomb was 'Failure' and pointed to Pres Bush early in his administration.

The Troll (above post) offers no argument that this did not happen. The only reason the Troll (above post) even comes here is because it wishes to share a bed with Obama, and will protect its love no matter what.

Troll - Obama is way above you. Obama uses you as a stepping stone in life. You must really enjoy being at the 'foot' (ment in the Muzzie context) of Obama.

Google realized that the 'Google Bomb' could put them into a legal situation they did not desire, so they changed the rules that would allow a 'Google Bomb' to protect themselves.

Google is evil.

When I do a search of "the biggest dipshit in the history of Moonbattery" the only result is "the dumbass who posts as Dan Quayle".

The progressive God is no doubt highly insulted to be lumped together with some dead white guy's repressive hegemonic imaginary friend.

This is nothing more than a preemptive attempt to stal the Presidency from Obama (PBUH) by queering the progressive vote.

Huh. When I search Barnes and Nobel for "the biggest dipshit in the history of Moonbattery", I get

Who Guards the Guardians and How : Democratic Civil-Military Relations by Thomas C. Bruneau & Scott D. Tollefson

I'm not sure who this "Troll" is that Oiao is so fond of. I'm pretty sure Senator Larry Craig was being a troll in the Minneapolis airport men's room, but I don't see any reference to being a schlongmouth in any part of this post.

Maybe I should type "Oiao schlongmouthing" into Google or Barnes and Nobel.

What's it all about, people? Can't we be civil?

WRITE IN QUAYLE '08 -- ALL YOUR GOOGLE ARE BELONG TO US

Oiao,

Why does typing "asshole president" into Barnes & Nobel bring up Hillary and Gore?

Neither one of them was president. (Well, technically Gore was, but I won't quibble.)

Who's Google Bombing the Barnes & Nobel with misleading "asshole president" references? Any why?

I want names.

Oiao,

Why does typing "asshole president" into Barnes & Nobel bring up Hillary and Gore?

Neither one of them was president. (Well, technically Gore was, but I won't quibble.)

Who's Google Bombing the Barnes & Nobel with misleading "asshole president" references? And why?

I want names.

Could it be that the shallow, whining, patently fake, vaguely roachlike Barack Obama really is a god, from the point of view of the libs at Barnes & Noble?

It could also be that they were mocking him. I'm not sure I'd jump to the conclusion that this was intended as a compliment...

The liberal computer geeks are finally finding Moonbattery. Watch out...they will start striking and running more and more now. I guess it means we're getting under their skin, even though (take note, Quayle) we give you and your opinions exactly zero attention.

You have your blogs, your Kos's, your MSNBC's, your NY Times ad nauseam. But I guess that isn't enough so you come here...perhaps because it scares you that there are still people not in lock-step with "progressive" thought.

Yes, we can be civil (not sure if your use of the word "schlongmouth" would pass muster as civil) and no, we don't see a "bogeyman behind every bush". Unlike the left which sees a Bush behind every bogeyman. Oh, and we have lives, thank you. You can tell by the amount of taxes we pay.

Rob Banks - very good point - but knowing B&N from past exploits, I'd say not accurate. It's nice to consider though... in a perfect word.

kudos on the possibility

That's "perfect WORLD" rather than word. Sorry - the "L" key sticks on this IBM Stinkpad - worst computer I've ever owned.

It's not clear that "schlongmouth" is either a perferct word, or part of your "perfect world".

I do approve of your use of "Stinkpad", though it makes me question why your keys are sticky.

Regards,

stal = steal

He is still there but at number 47.

This has nothing to do with moonbattery, just wanted to throw it out there:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1273232.ece

This is similar to the way Google had anyone searching on "Miserable Failure" back in 2007 automatically linking to Bush's Whitehouse page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm

Of course once they are exposed they remove the links.

"Neither one of them was president. (Well, technically Gore was, but I won't quibble.)"

It's a good thing you don't want to quibble because you don't know what you're talking about.
I checked the Constitution and the election laws and Bush won according to the rules in place on election day. Here's a hint: the president isn't elected by popular vote.

No, the libtards are unlikely to swarm here. Being confident of victory in 5 months, they no longer see the wingnut blogosphere as a threat, more like a mosquito bite on the ankle. However, if they lose in November, we'll reemerge as a giant force of evil guilty of stealing the sovereignty of the American people, in need of management and punishment. But we needn't worry too much about that; it's pretty obvious what's going to go down in November. We are, in fact, collectively a mosquito bite until 2012; the trick is to embrace it.

"I checked the Constitution and the election laws and Bush won according to the rules in place on election day."

Actually, no. The laws in place on election day 2000 were that all votes should be counted. Our Supreme Court majority changed that rule by stopping the recount that would have shown Al Gore taking Florida.

A perfect wingnut coup. We should always be proud of that.

Actually, no. The laws in place on election day 2000 were that all votes should be counted.

Except the military absentee ballots, of course.

"William Renquist at June 13, 2008 10:42 AM"

How many times are they to be counted? fifty? a hundred? A thousand? Or just untill YOUR man is elected?
The CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA says that we shall have but ONE recount. There were THREE recounts plus one more interupted by CONSTITUTIONAL LAW in 2000. after that, there were FOUR UNOFFICIAL recounts at the insistance and supervision of LIBERALS and your boy still LOST.
Get over it.

Silly liberals - after 8 years they still have chads hanging out their butts. Normal people would wipe their ass and move on.

If what you say about the recounts all pointing to a Bush victory were true, do you think we would have stuck our necks out on this? Your lack of perspective on the big picture is just silly.

I have nothing more to say on this.

"If what you say about the recounts all pointing to a Bush victory were true, do you think we would have stuck our necks out on this?"

It's true and you have and continue to make fools of yourselves. In fact, a private investigation firm was hired to "expose the illegal tactics of the Republican party in the 2000 election", but instead, they discovered that the illegal activaties were commited by the DEMOCRATS. The story was quickly buried.

"Your lack of perspective on the big picture is just silly."

The big picture is GORE LOST!!!

"I have nothing more to say on this."

Now stamp your foot and say "so THERE!" You have proven nothing, only flung accusations which Liberals always do instead of providing FACTS. Remember when your kind were fond of saying "conservatives are blocking debate!"? You stopped saying that because we kept presenting FACTS to counter your hysterical accusations, insults and demands.

If what you say about the recounts all pointing to a Bush victory were true, do you think we would have stuck our necks out on this? Your lack of perspective on the big picture is just silly.

I have nothing more to say on this.

Posted by: William Renquist at June 14, 2008 3:10 PM

William..

Um..

Apparently you missed this one.

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

Oops.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

If what you say about the recounts all pointing to a Bush victory were true, do you think we would have stuck our necks out on this?

Er.. I can haz..

Sense of entitlement, disconnection from reality, propensity to view authority as evil, propensity to subscribe to conspiracy theories, and automatic assumption of overwhelming moral authority driven by lack of adherence to any external moral code?

In other words, the exact same motivations that drive liberals to do everything they ever do?

Who'da thunk.

Thanks for the back-up, M C.

^^ NP. Many people are completely unaware of that study, as it received absolutely no media coverage.