Yes. You CAN affect what comes up with popular searches– by doing something called “GOOGLE BOMBING.”

I’m not sure what they do. I think you waste hours and hours of your life searching on google a popular term– and somehow linking it to stupid shit.

It’s for young ugly boys without girlfriends. It’s for those kids who are not good at sports, are not THAT smart. These are the same ones hacking, stalking Hillary supporters (women) online and in life, and they do death threats too.

This is what the Virginia Tech shooter would be doing if he were alive today. Instead of getting these Columbine shooters help, love, direction, job, girlfriends, and so on—people like Markos at Daily Kos help them spread their hate.

Markos is teaching hackers, google bombers, how to also be terribly damaging to women and race bait.

ARE WE UNIFIED YET?

Hillary has every right to stay and fight (as does Barack), and the remaining states have a right to choose their candidate. The contest is too close for one or the other to give in right now. It is arrogant and presumptuous for the Obama campaign to keep crying “Surrender, Hillary!” — sounding much like the Wicked Witch in “The Wizard of Oz.”

OTOH: No one should claim that the Center for Media and Public Affairs is “nonpartisan” (per the first quote from Dobbs above). Here are the funding sources and folks behind CMPA from SourceWatch:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs

As SourceWatch concludes: “The data reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA’s funding comes from conservative foundations.”

Not exactly non-partisan funding sources, or a non-partisan media watch organization.

YOU can’t believe anything until you see the Bottom line, read the fine Print, Have the Check cashed at the bank, someone Gets Indicted, or the Judge says..GUILTY as charged..

Forget the OJ Media..and the PUNKIN HEAD PUNDITS..

The Project for Excellence in Journalism piece, with it’s Pew Research Center linkage, is the one I would front.

Well lemme see now…….

CMPA headline: MEDIA BOOST OBAMA, BASH “BILLARY
CMPA subhead: Hillary Pilloried ?

These results are from CMPA’s 2008 ElectionNewsWatch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 765 election news stories (22 hours 15 minutes of airtime) that aired on the flagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX (the first 30 minutes of “Special Report with Brit Hume”, which is most like the network news shows in content and presentation) from December 16, 2007 through January 27, 2008.

Fifteen yards and loss of down for spin cycle meltdown.

“boost vs.bash” or “pilloried” is currently trading at forty biases….. you still have to feed the pot before you can call.

Now if that is sociopathic bashing or pillorying, then all is revealed. Regrettably, one would then have to prove how something as brain-dead as the media can exhibit the symptoms of sociopathology. These little problems never stop. Pity.

I contacted you old prof at trollschool and he recommends your best fallback position is to prove that CMPA has a conservative bias (as FAIR, a media group with a liberal bias, says). Then, of course, you would have to show how a conservative bias would trump the obvious fact and the statistics. If George Wallace had said the Sun was one AU away, would that make it a lie? Science is so unfair.

However that analytical approach wouldn’t be the usual triumph of style over substance that the Obama crowd celebrates, would it?

Unneccessary roughness – cheap shot. Sorry Flea