Comments on: WorldNetDaily: Selflessly Fighting the God-Hating Sodomites at Google So the Rest of Us Can Have a Good Laugh

By: concentrates

concentrates — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:12:55 +0000

http://www.topwebs.de/user/buchi/pantyhose/ttflylg/nylon-leg-fetish.html http://www.topwebs.de/user/buchi/incest/shop.html encouragedhuskypointing

By: debt consolidation

debt consolidation — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:58:22 +0000

debt consolidation http://www.debtconsolidation-site.com

By: stock

stock — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:33:03 +0000

http://bytepc.com/wwwboard/messages/27026.html complimentwhosewondered

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 22 May 2005 14:11:05 +0000

congrats mate! Fine job and fine site!

By: Hysterical Woman

Hysterical Woman — Mon, 09 May 2005 01:30:50 +0000

Here’s Page 2 of a Google search for images of “Clinton.” Does it have any photos of nude women?
I didn’t see the woman, but I did see a Bush. BAH-dum-chink! Thank you, please tip your server!

By: Brad R.

Brad R. — Thu, 05 May 2005 19:49:12 +0000

I did a Google Image Search of “Sadly No” and I found this picture of Brad (before his operation)

GAAAAAAH!!! My horrible past dragged out into the light!!!!

I think it’s clear that god loves lesbians.

Cool… does that mean, like, I get to watch?

By: Honey

Honey — Thu, 05 May 2005 12:49:41 +0000

There’s nothing in the bible saying thou shalt not lay down with woman as with man. And, seeing as how it tells you what you should do if your woman does your GOAT, I think it’s clear that god loves lesbians.

By: Hemlock Echo

Hemlock Echo — Thu, 05 May 2005 12:00:07 +0000

I did a Google Image Search of “Sadly No” and I found this picture of Brad (before his operation):
http://www.rollerderbyfoundation.org/db2/00197/rollerderbyfoundation.org/_uimages/Calvello1.jpg

I think the current meme of conservatives is: “One time, I saw a liberal somewhere…. whaaaa whaaaa!” Now that they own all three branches of government and the country is still the same and there’s no mass revival of the 1950s they have to turn to blaming google, a bride with cold feet, and middle school administrators for the downfall of our society.

By: D. Sidhe

D. Sidhe — Thu, 05 May 2005 11:25:59 +0000

Possibly we should round these people up and teach ‘em to use a search engine. Has it occurred to them that typing in vulgarities is more likely to lead to an assumption by ad-selecting software that they are interested in, uh, vulgarities? Wouldn’t a non-degenerate (someone who isn’t me, for example) have been searching on “sodomy”? Your sponsored link there is a Bible course explaining why it’s evil.
No porn. And that’s with *all* filtering turned off. Which is not the default setting, for pity’s sake.
“not a safe search engine for children”. Fantastic. So watch your kids and don’t let them turn the filter off. Better yet, don’t turn it off yourself. When you have a kid, you buy the outlet plugs to childproof your home. You don’t lobby the government to remove outlets from all homes so your kid doesn’t stick a fork in one.
Your Vigilance Fatigue doesn’t get to bring the culture to a grinding halt.

By: Nic

Nic — Thu, 05 May 2005 11:11:12 +0000

No link associating Sadly, No! with American as apple pie gay ass sex. You could loose some street cred for that, bub.

Try to take it easy on the right wingers and their obsession with gay ass sex. It is just something that they do. Especially when they are drinking, with the boys, and get so drunk that they can’t even remember what happened that night.

By: Frederick

Frederick — Thu, 05 May 2005 05:55:19 +0000

if we "shouldn't honor people who break God's laws and/or engage in risky behavior," why stop at sodomy?) And what about those bastards who eat shellfish, which Leviticus (yup, the same Book with the anti-gay quote so beloved by the wingnuts) proscribes? Remember, God hates shrimp.

By: Brad R.

Brad R. — Thu, 05 May 2005 05:36:16 +0000

Mike-
Points taken. I’ve fixed some of it. I’ve got finals coming up soon and am extremely lazy.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 05 May 2005 05:11:24 +0000

Obviously the folks at WND are dimwits and mouth-breathers, but in fairness they’re objecting in this specific comment to placed ads for gay porn not search results (though i’m sure they object to that also). Obviously, until Google replaces the federal government the free speech argument is silly (one assumes that WND carries gay porn ads out of respect for the 1st amendment). It’s not until the bit about the Clinton search that they blame Google for the content of the entire Internet.

By: Yosef

Yosef — Thu, 05 May 2005 04:58:37 +0000

What about the heterosexual videos featuring #nal sex?

By: Brad R.

Brad R. — Thu, 05 May 2005 04:57:52 +0000

Of course they are full of crap, but if you turn off all the image filtering on google images and search for Clinton you do get a nude image (of Bill with a fake naked Monica Lewinsky).

If that’s the one they’re referring to, you do wonder why they’ve turned the filtering off..

Ironically, most of those lewd “Clinton” images were probably posted by bored Freepers.

By: Syllopsium

Syllopsium — Thu, 05 May 2005 04:53:50 +0000

Of course they are full of crap, but if you turn off all the image filtering on google images and search for Clinton you do get a nude image (of Bill with a fake naked Monica Lewinsky).

If that’s the one they’re referring to, you do wonder why they’ve turned the filtering off..

By: ts

ts — Thu, 05 May 2005 04:37:13 +0000

FYI, when you do an image search on Sadly, No! you do get one image of a naked butt (female). Shouldn’ta done it at work. My bad. Some of the other pictures are clean, but rather horrifying.