…type in the words “Miserable Failure” (include the quotes) and then hit “I Feel Lucky.”
And don’t come bìŧçhìņg to me about it if you don’t like the result.
PAD
…type in the words “Miserable Failure” (include the quotes) and then hit “I Feel Lucky.”
And don’t come bìŧçhìņg to me about it if you don’t like the result.
PAD
• 
What excatly does that ‘I’m feeling lucky’ button mean?
ROFLMAO
Priceless! Thanks Pete… I’ll have to share that with my conservative republican father-in-law. 😛
sna: “I’m feeling Lucky” takes you to the top entry in google’s database for your search.
I’m guessing this is a joke being played by someone at Google? If you do a search w/o hitting “I Feel Lucky” you still get Bush’s bio listed as the top result. Generally, the topic you are looking for at least appears once in the top results.
I guess it is pretty funny. However, it would be even more funny if it were true.
I mean:
Failor #1
Failor #2
Failor #3
Public’s reaction to the failor
I apparently don’t understand the mechanics behind Google as much as I thought I did.
The words “miserable failure” aren’t anywhere at all found within the domain of whitehouse.gov, let alone the specific page that Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” function brought me to. Yet this is the number one choice on the list.
Number two choice and number three choice associate the President with “Miserable Failure”…. number one is about the President… so I now assume that it draws a correlation of some sort when determining the number one entry.
How stupid. What a stupid way of doing it… if that’s how it’s done.
You type in two words in quotes and the first site it brings you is a site that has neither of the two words there…. this has gotta be a joke of some sort because otherwise the Google system isn’t quite as sophisticated as I thought.
Technological commentary aside, this still isn’t as funny as “French Military Victories” and clicking ‘I’m feeling lucky’.
I’d say that no matter what my party. It’s always funnier to rip on the French than on the President. Try it with any American Preident, any American President at all. It’s more fun to rip on the French.
Don’t know why.
CJA
It’s not a Google-gag by any means… check the top of the list here:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Miserable+Failure%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=
CJA
Either someone at google is playing a joke–in which case they will probably be looking for a job soon–or this is a deliberate effort to manipulate the way google works.
As I understand it, google looks for the maximum number of links to a subject. So if a large number of conservatives were to make hyperlinks of the words “Donkey fëlláŧìø” to a site that talks about Al Sharpton, people who are genuinely interested in the subject of Donkey fëlláŧìø will be directed to Al’s site, a real waste of their time. I think.
This kind of thing could really screw up a great resource if it gets out of hand. But we’ll have a few cheap laughs so what the hëll.
Arndt,
I think yahoo now just uses google for searches.
Those two words pretty much sum up what George Double Imbecile means to me.
JHL
For the longest time I believed that they used the same search engine as well… they do have a business relationship of sorts.
But the base core of the Yahoo is still different…. unfortunately that has nothing to do with its system used for site matches…. just the categorical crud which is irrelevent in this case.
So is it a deliberate gag or faulty code?
sniff…sniff.
I smell some liberal bias here….
(using sing-songy voice)
Pop quiz.
What story makes the mainstream news:
a) Bush getting a child’s age wrong
b)the leading Democratic presidential candidate mistakenly calling Russia “the Soviet Union” not once, but four times.
Google uses not only the page itself, but how the page is linked from other sites. So if there is an organized effort to add links to a particular page with a certain phrase, then when you search Google for that phrase, the linked-to page may show up in the results.
For example, if I were to link to Peter David’s website from Psi Phi with the phrase “Star Trek author”, then even if the phrase “Star Trek author” does not appear on Peter David’s website, somebody searching Google for “Star Trek author” might still find PAD’s site.
Or if somebody links to a page at whitehouse.gov with the text “miserable failure” (and if Google has indexed that page recently), then a search for the phrase “miserable failure” may show that page even though the phrase does not appear on that page anywhere. If there is a concerted effort to provide links from lots of different sites to that page, all using the same phrase, then Google will see that a lot of sites consider the linked-to page to be a good example of “miserable failure” and will rank it higher.
davidh
Didn’t PAD direct us to something like this before? I don’t remember if it was the same phrase he had us search for or something else.
This gag is quite old (and I sort of thought it was pointed out here before — but I guess not).
Didn’t PAD direct us to something like this before? I don’t remember if it was the same phrase he had us search for or something else.
“Weapons of Mass Destruction”. The payoff was a page advising that “Weapons of Mass Destruction Could Not Be Found.”
I will admit, that is amusing.
I don’t think the fault lies with Google, Yahoo, or any other search engine.
It is entirely possible that the specific site was hacked, or someone who has appropriate clearance got in and programmed a meta-tag (code that allows search engines to “hit” on words that are not visible).
Just my guess.
Another chuckle:
Go to http://www.googlefight.com and type in “Peter David” and “George W Bush” (no quotes) and look at the results (adding quotes reverses the results). Ain’t technology fun?
Oh, but it is true JAMES TICHY
look:
Failure 1:
http://newyork.sierraclub.org/rochester/energy_commission.htm
Failure 2:
http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/4805_comment.php
failure 3:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=745
failure 4:
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030826-021444-8425r.htm
failure 5:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,880724,00.html
Failure 6:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Estephan/USfatalities.html
failure 7:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/082803h1.htm
I could keep going, but I think I’ve made my point. No more bush in 2004!!
Tanviper, next time don’t use obviously bias sources such as the Sierra Club. As far as the others I don’t see any failors. Did we not think there were going to be deaths in the War in Iraq? Amazing how the members of my family serving in Iraq support our president and this war. They understand that they would reather be fighting terror in the middle east than on our own soil.
As far as your Sierra Club goes…groups like them are keeping a coal gasification plant from being built near my home town. This would bring hundreds of jobs to this hurting area. I have no respect for groups like that. Oh, that energy bill that just died in congress due to democratic opposition would have been signed by Bush and would have built the plant.
Bush has brougth security to our country and put money in my pocket.
Bush/Cheny ’04
Bill Mulligan: This kind of thing could really screw up a great resource if it gets out of hand.
Here’s an idea: let’s be even-handed about it and link EVERY politician with some kind of funny phrase on Google… they’re all public figures, and therefore they’re all subject to satire/ridicule. Personally, I think linking ‘donkey fëlláŧìø’ to Al Sharpton is a good start. I can’t stand that guy.
That OTHER John Byrne
Oh, and our country’s economy is seeing it’s biggest boom since ’83. That beats out your beloved Cinton era ’90s. Surely someone who voted for a person who ran on the slogan “It’s the economy stupid” could understand why people are happy.
I’d be happy to be classified as being miserable at failing. 8^)
Oh, for pete’s sake (pun intended)…
Let’s take a show of hands… how many people know Mr. David’s political bias?
uh huh… thought so.
And trying to prove we liberals wrong is the same as we liberals trying to prove the conservatives wrong.
If we don’t wanna listen, we ain’t gonna listen.
You see a great president, I see a disaster.
It was an amusing thing that PAD pointed out. Was it liberal biased? Yes. Does it call for heavy debating? Not really. Besides, to quote his message:
And don’t come bìŧçhìņg to me about it if you don’t like the result.
Travis
Strangely enough, I went ahead and did it, but for some reason, typed in “Miserable Bášŧárd”… and got a Warren Ellisian’s homepage.
I didn’t know what was the big deal until I read the comments. Then realized I substituted bášŧárd for failure.
This is either a huge Freudian slip (Freudian typo?), or the consequences of staying up all night to finish a term paper at the last minute.
eddie
James Tichy: I’m glad someone is seeing some money from the Bush tax cut. Because I didn’t get my cut. My mother didn’t get her cut. Nor did my brother, my sister, or my brother in law.
I’m sure it just got lost in the mail. 😉
Could we please not get into a “my President is better than your President” schtick? If you like Bush/Cheney, well, good for you. If you don’t (like me), then good for you. Everyone’s got opinions. This is why I don’t like modern politics. It’s not really about issues anymore, is it? It’s about disliking the other guy. A lot of Bush supporters hated Clinton with a passion. A lot of Clinton supporter hate Bush with a passion.
I’m reminded of an episode of the West Wing, where Ainsley Hayes accompanied Sam Seaborn to the Hill, to discuss a political issue with some Republican senators. Ainsley remarks something to the effect of “I don’t think you’re opposed to this bill because you think it’s a bad bill, though you may have reservations. I think it’s mostly because you hate the other guys. That’s sad.”
Indeed.
Anyhoo, that’s quite funny, PAD. 🙂
I’d say that no matter what my party. It’s always funnier to rip on the French than on the President.
Oh, no….it’s almost ALWAYS funnier to rip on the President…I mean, almost half the country will agree with you with heartfelt passion (versus a majority with lukewarm acceptance…)
Besides, I think it should be every American’s patriotic duty to rip on the President…After all…WE put him in office, so who has a better right?
> Or if somebody links to a page at whitehouse.gov with the
> text “miserable failure” (and if Google has indexed that page
> recently), then a search for the phrase “miserable failure”
> may show that page even though the phrase does not appear on
> that page anywhere. If there is a concerted effort to provide
> links from lots of different sites to that page, all using the
> same phrase, then Google will see that a lot of sites consider
> the linked-to page to be a good example of “miserable failure”
> and will rank it higher.
That is indeed what is going on. See this link for more info:
http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000654.html
I don’t know what the big deal is about. I don’t follow politics and I thought it was funny. (Actually, maybe that’s why I found it funny).
I’ve used google for years and actually like they’re feel lucky feature as it brings me right to PAD’s site. heh. When I get lazy I use I feel lucky button. Blah tired of hearing about W.
James Tichy….
The Sierra club was just one of SEVERAL links I could have picked, the information is valid if you like it or not. Bush has done more harm to this country then I can express in words.
Just because we’re the lone superpower, doesn’t give us the right to invade another country or for Dad Bush and uncle Cheney can get rich of funneling reconstruction contracts to their friends.
I also have friends and family who are over in Iraq, and they’ve all told me NOT ONE person they talked to either believes Bush or supports this war. Bush has done NOTHING to prove the need to invade Iraq. Don’t get me wrong, I have no love for Saddam, but he wasn’t a threat to the USA. North Korea is a MUCH bigger problem, has admitted to having nuclear weapons, has been caught RED HANDED selling ballistic missile to anyone who’s will to pay for them, and has threaten to invade south Korea and attack the USA. What does Daddy bush do?? NOTHING. You know why? Oil. Plan and simple. Can get rich rebuilding Korea. We had Iraq contained. They had sanctions on them that could never have been lifted without our OK in the UN. None of the WMD, or links to Al Qaeda have been proven after 6 months of us going over that country. We pulled need resources from Afghanistan to fight this war, when we should have finished up there before doing anything else. Now we’ll be stuck in both places for the foreseeable future at a cost of BILLIONS to the US tax payer.
That coal plant was stopped for a reason, maybe because it’s dirty power?? I don’t know all the facts about it. But I do know if Bush was for it, then it HAD to be bad, or it lined the pocket of some special interest group. Whatever the reason, I’m glad it failed!
You said you’d rather be fighting terrorist in a foreign country then at home, I do agree with you there. It has to be a WORLD effort however. We can’t go RAMBO on any country we see fit. Iraq has turned into a breeding ground for terrorist now. We need the UN and the world to back actions like that. Stop and think. Why is it ALMOST EVERY MAJOR power on earth is against what we did in Iraq? Bush is causing us more problems then he’s fixing.
Don’t give me “there’s a coalition of the willing there” none sense either…Poland, Czech Republic, Mongolia, and Uzbekistan most of the “coalition” is 3rd worlds country’s AT BEST. Here’s something else for you to think about…One of the conditions for Poland to help in Iraq was for the USA to give the ALL the equipment they would need. From Jeeps, bullets, and gas to food and Tents. This wasn’t just a Poland deal either, several country’s troops where sent (in small numbers) on the condition we supply darn near everything. How do I know? Cause my brother that just got back from over there. He’s a supply officer with the 3rd MEU out of Camp Pendleton, California. He had to supply SEVERAL groups of foreign troops with gear that should have gone to our guys. Even after that, they still didn’t want to pick up any slack for us. They kept the marines over there 4 months LONGER then they should have been as a 911 force to help them out. Some “coalition of the willing”.
Don’t like the Sierra club link, ok. Here’s a FEW MORE:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-24-cheney.htm
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_3457.shtml
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO201A.html
MANY MORE where that came from…point is, Cheney and Bush should be investigated for this. It’s Criminal that they make a policy that lines the pockets of their friends, something that affects every person in the USA, and they have the nerve to tell us it’s not our business??
MANY MORE where that came from…point is, Cheney and Bush should be investigated for this. It’s Criminal that they make a policy that lines the pockets of their friends, something that affects every person in the USA, and they have the nerve to tell us it’s not our business??
Why not? That’s what the Democrats were saying from 1993-2000 about Clinton and Gore. (Perjury, illegal fundraising, that sort of thing.) If you opposed Clinton the same way you oppose Bush, then you are a consistent critic of executive malfeasance and I owe you an apology. If you only criticize Bush, then you are a partisan and I owe you a set of instructions on where to shove it.
Incidentally, the policies you mention are not failures with the exception of the WMD issue. Clearly we have found way fewer WMDs than we expected in Iraq. (Two possible mobile labs. Yay.) That was the only failure, because the President was clearly intending something else to happen or be found. The other issues aren’t failures; they’re successful policies you don’t like. It’s not reasonable to label someone a failure for failing to live up to your expectations.
Tanviper,
The US went to the UN and after a ridiculous amount of posturing and the like, there was a unanimous resolution.
Then when it came time to enforce that resolution, the UN just refused to put any muscle behind their words…AGAIN!!!!!.
How long were we supposed to sit around twiddling our thumbs trying to get Germany, France, Russia, Syria, and company to do what they said were going to do? Another year? Five years? Ten years? There was absolutely nothing to be gained by continuing to wait for approval that everybody who’s honest about the situation has to admit was NEVER GOING TO COME.
The French admitted it. They would never enforce the resolution that they voted for.
In regards to the claim that Bush went in “without our allies” wrong AGAIN!!!!!!!
Britain, Poland, and Australia put their blood on the line.
Furthermore, since the war has been over, brave men and women from Britain, Italy, Spain, Poland, the Ukraine, & Denmark have all lost their lives helping bring Democracy to Iraq.
Poland, Czech Republic, Mongolia, and Uzbekistan most of the “coalition” is 3rd worlds country’s AT BEST.
I’m not sure why these countries being part of what you designate as the “third world” makes their support, or their decision to support us, any less valid.
David Bjorlin…
1) I didn’t like Clinton either.
2)”we have found way fewer WMDs than we expected “…Try None. We haven’t found ONE WMD. Bush’s point of the war was WMD. Even Iraqi Scientists are saying there wasn’t a program to rebuild his WMD, only programs to get long range Missiles. Yes, a clear violation of the UN charter, but not worth Lives of one “coalition” solider.
3)”The other issues aren’t failures; they’re successful policies you don’t like”…really. You call a 408+ BILLION dollar defect a Success? If you ran a business like that, you’d be in jail.
You call secret closed door meeting with top oil/energy officials that helped right a national energy policy a success? Conflict of interest anyone?
what was said that’s so secret that the tax payers can’t find out about it? I can understand national defense, but this is far from that.
You call having to bribe our “allies” into a war a success? Where’s this Coalition of the willing?
AnthonyX…..
I 100% agree with you that the UN dropped the ball on Iraq. One empty resolution after another, but that doesn’t give Bush a blank check to invade Iraq. The UN needs reform, but it should be done with in the confines of the world body. Having the USA going around cowboy style isn’t going to make us any friends.
Poland sent 2300 troops, Australia sent 900. England is the ONLY country beside the USA, to send a large number of troops. Don’t you ever wonder way Bush only talks about the number of countries sending troops to Iraq and not the number of troops each country is sending?? Most of them are only sending a TOKEN force. That’s nothing in the grand scheme of things. They want to keep on the good side of the US, so they tip toe around the Iraqi problem by sending a small handle full of troops. Some “coalition of the willing”
I never said no one else lost troops in Iraq. For what’s its worth, it’s a great strategy on the Iraqis to target foreign troops. This war is hugely unpopular in most of the world. Citizens aren’t going to like to see their troops coming home in body bags from a war that had no popular backing.
“In regards to the claim that Bush went in “without our allies” wrong AGAIN!!!!!!!”
Oh really…here’s a link to the Whitehouse’s list of the “coalition”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html
I see maybe 3 military, economic powerhouse there. The rest are 3rd world countries. Bush List 48 other country that are part of his coalition. They get on that list by just giving something as simple as over flight rights!! WOW, hold me back. What a major statement to the world about your dedication to Bushes “coalition”. I’m curious, if you took away everyone on that list that didn’t contribute troops, how many would you actually have? I’ll tell you…26. That right, ONLY 26 out of Bushes 48, and only 26 nation out of 192 on earth have troops there.
“Having the USA going around cowboy style isn’t going to make us any friends.”
They wanted you guys in Rwanda.
They needed you guys in the former Yugoslavia.
Where were the protests when Clinton and Blair went into that mess??
There were none. Why?
This isn’t about being anti-American (I am Canadian, next to Hockey, it is our national sport)
The reasons why the protests exist are a simple letter. Replace the (R) with a (D) beside Bush’s name and this would have been a success story.
Replace the (R) with a (D) beside Arnolds name and it would have been a wonderful rags to riches immigrant story.
Its much worse than anti-Americanism, it is anti-right wing or whatever dillusional cliched definition you have of right wing.
Thought Policing. Its scary.
We (the US or the world for that matter) didn’t step into Rwanda because it’s a poor African nation where blacks where killing blacks. The US has no national interest there, nor do we care much about it. It’s the said truth. Do you think we would allow something like Rwanda to happen in England, France or Germany?
Yugoslavia: We went in with a UN mandate and the backing of NATO. We have neither in Iraq.
I still think Arnold is a great rags to riches story. Regardless of him being a republican or democrat. He said one time he came to the USA with like 20 dollars to him name.
I didn’t care for Clinton, and didn’t vote for him either time I had the chance.
But Reagans pet chimp ‘Bonzo’ would be a better predident than GWB.
I bet if I did a Bill Clinton search I’d find plenty of the same fluff. But of course you can’t say anything against Slick Willie now can ya???
Slick Willie didnt bomb anyone when he was in office huh? Uhuh, he was too busy getting head in the ovel office but that was ok with everyone. Clinton didn’t even get permission to bomb did he? You whiny Dems/Liberals seem to forget that. You anti-Bush people crack me up. I hope he gets re-elected so bad, just out of spite. I hope you end up with W. for 4 more years.
Bush is a lock in 2004 and the Liberals know it. Dean is too far to the left, but he is leading against the other Dems. So what do the others do? They come out, like John Kerry did, and blast Bush on levels that Dean never did. They are trying to “out-dean” Dean. Great, I say, because like it or not this country will never elect someone who is too far to the left. In fact Clinton had to claim to be a “new democrat” and embrace conservative polocies to get elected.
What is Dean going to use against the President? The economy? Nope. The war? Not with a majority of Americans supporting the war on terror and bringing peace to Iraq.
That being said, your “Miserable Failure” is going to serve another prosperous four years in the White House.
That’s the great thing about being a rich kid. You can be a miserable failure, but in the end, you’re still rich.
You guys crack me up. Could the partisans her possibly be any more rabid? I could actually SEE the foaming mouths and flying spittle.
Charming.
And what do you mean PAD’s a liberal? I never noticed that before… Ðámņ, if I’d have known that (and assuming that actually bothered me, which it doesn’t) I might have reconsidered whether reading this thread would be a wise idea.
Hmm… I’ll have to think about that next time this happens. *rolling eyes*
Personally, I think discussing politics is a moot point. People feel the way they do, and all the debating in the world will not change their opinions. For every piece of evidence showing what a poor job the President is doing, someone will find a piece saying what a great job he is doing. And when all is said and done, the only one who cares what I think of the man is me.
Common Just Jack… don’t stop it.. I enjoy people arguing back and forth when I am not involved :).
The purpose of any debate (political in particular) is not to convert the opposing position (liberal vs. conservative), its to influence the audience. Those people who are not firmly entrenched in one ideology or another.
If you convert a staunch supporter, thats just gravy. Mmmm Gravy.
Note to Peter:
See what you started???!
lol lol lol that was funny.
TANVIPER(YOU):We (the US or the world for that matter) didn’t step into Rwanda because it’s a poor African nation where blacks where killing blacks. The US has no national interest there, nor do we care much about it.
ME: WRONG. After what happened in Somalia, remember a poor black country, blacks killing blacks. Clinton wanted nothing to do with it.
YOU: Yugoslavia: We went in with a UN mandate and the backing of NATO. We have neither in Iraq.
ME: WRONG! The UN never approved of it. Clinton nor Blair ever asked for the UNs permission.
YOU: I still think Arnold is a great rags to riches story. Regardless of him being a republican or democrat. He said one time he came to the USA with like 20 dollars to him name.
ME: Thank you for your honesty. But check what the media is reporting.
Oh, and our country’s economy is seeing it’s biggest boom since ’83. That beats out your beloved Cinton era ’90s. Surely someone who voted for a person who ran on the slogan “It’s the economy stupid” could understand why people are happy.
1983. During the Reagan Administration. Ya know, the one that turned America from the world’s largest creditor nation to the world’s largest debtor nation? The administration that heralded one of the largest unemployment rates in memory? The presidency whose policies led to Black Monday on Wall Street, an unheard of amount of white-collar crime, the crippling of organized labor, and the foreclosure of farms? If you’re trying to tell me that the economy is just as good as it was under Reagan, I am more concerned for our nation’s economic health than I was before.
It’s easy to have the appearance of prosperity when you subscribe to deficit spending. It’s when the bill is due that you’re screwed. And I assure you, the one’s paying the bill will not be the people who ran up the charges.
James,
As a friendly suggestion, you’re misspelling “failors” (failures). It doesn’t help your argument when you do that.
MANY MORE where that came from…point is, Cheney and Bush should be investigated for this. It’s Criminal that they make a policy that lines the pockets of their friends, something that affects every person in the USA, and they have the nerve to tell us it’s not our business??
Why not? That’s what the Democrats were saying from 1993-2000 about Clinton and Gore. (Perjury, illegal fundraising, that sort of thing.) If you opposed Clinton the same way you oppose Bush, then you are a consistent critic of executive malfeasance and I owe you an apology. If you only criticize Bush, then you are a partisan and I owe you a set of instructions on where to shove it.
With respect, Clinton/Gore were investigated up the wazoo and nothing came out of it. Moreover, the main thing Clinton was investigated for (Whitewater) dealt with alleged past deeds that had no direct bearing on the nation he was currently running. Quite a sight different than things happening now in the White House that have a direct relationship to how it affects the American state.
Quite frankly, if the Office of Independent Counsel still existed, I suspect Bush would be in very deep doo-doo.
North Korea is a MUCH bigger problem, has admitted to having nuclear weapons, has been caught RED HANDED selling ballistic missile to anyone who’s will to pay for them, and has threaten to invade south Korea and attack the USA. What does Daddy bush do?? NOTHING.
You can’t see why someone would treat a country with nuclear weapons differently than one that doesn’t? As Gweilo Diaries puts it,
An attack on North Korea would likely have resulted in more American casualties in the first hour than have been incurred in Iraq thus far, the devastation of Seoul by North Korean artillary bombardment and missile strikes (which I am pretty sure America’s South Korean allies would object to), missile attacks against Tokyo (which America’s ally Japan is unlikely to have welcomed), an horrific civilian death toll, a severe and long lasting blow to the South Korean economy from the costs of reunification (which the South Koreans have made clear they wish to avoid), serious harm to the Chinese economy from a massive influx of refugees, US troops on the Chinese border (the long-term ramifications of which one can only begin to imagine, but which would certainly include a massive increase in Chinese military spending), and reconstruction costs to the US that would dwarf those it faces in Iraq,
http://www.gweilodiaries.com/archives/week_2003_10_05.html#001530