Posted on 05/03/2005 11:33:07 AM PDT by Bob J
This issue was on Brit Hume on Fox today.
ahh; 'quality'. . .but will they 'know it'; when they see it. . .
That can only mean that Hillary's lying is genetic. . .it is also deliberate, self-serving; constant which is to say; Hillary is a self-serving, sociopathic liar. . .
Er..you do realize that asking for a "Conservative" search engine is, in itself, BIASED, right?
I guess I am.......I'll rephrase the question:
"Are there any search engines that are not liberal-biased?"
Bump.
You can edit the entires at Wikipedia yourself. So it reflects the biases of whoever takes the time to edit it.
FYI
Saw it...good for Brit.
And here I thought all the stupid boycotts were only for Christmas!!
You know, it is funny that I would FreeRepublic through a Google search of CNN sucks, isn't it?
I second that boycott!
Space Battleships and their weaponry
I'll keep it like this for a couple of days, but I'll change it to get a better quality ad. The thing is, boycotting Google is not an option for me, it's a major traffic generator to my site and their hippy-crap affects my business.
I'm dumping my Google toolbar and will go with DogPile.com now. Thanks.
Google has logged only liberal sites as it applies to a search - and it has for years.
At the present time there is a "Neighborhood Group" who are associated with Google: www.orkut.com - which has anti-American, pro Islamist fundamentalist militants posting in a "friends" cover.
Google refuses to acknowledge and one has to join as an invitee of an accepted member.
This information can be found on the website: http://www.ProudToBeCanadian.ca
It has been reported to both Google who will do nothing and the FBI.
Another Liberal nest is AOL opening page which posts only anti-Republican, anti-Bush, anti-Conservative, pro-Liberal messages on its "news".
That's ok, I use www.profusion.com for my search engine! I find that I get much better & faster results than google.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Good God, it is a great short now. I thought it was around 120 or so. I will make more shorting this POS than I did shorting Crispy Creme!! Thanks!!
I don't think the original article was very well researched.
It would have been better to show a pattern than an isolated event.
Also, they used a California democrat and a Texas Republican. Since Google is California the person reviewing may have recognized the local name but not the other.
Or an individual Google employee could be biased.
or two different employees reviewed the ads and one was slack or lazy or made a mistake.
Or maybe Google IS biased but this article doesn't show that.
Certainly not enough to justify a boycot, in my opinion... but it would be interesting to do a more systematic test.
It you did it well and compared various search engines, you could probably generate a great deal of publicity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.