1.) go to www.google.com

2.) type in the single word: failure

3.) press the "I'm feeling lucky" button (instead of the google search one)

ENJOY

 

How cute! So another corporation in the USA is full of political bias, what's new?

 

How do you tell bias-ing from analyzing the facts?

 

I thought you were trying to keep this forum non-political because it upset you so much when you saw a political thread?

Anyway, it's easy to tell why there is bias in this case. The linked article is a brief bio of Bush. What is Google trying to say? After their "analyses" of the facts in the article, Bush is a failure because

...what? Try to answer by supporting Google, but without showing bias.

 

Let me give you a hint Lugnut and retype here another topic
The list keeps on growing and growing.

 

So what you're saying is that Google should have linked to an article with some facts to support their claim of him being a failure instead of merely his bio. Their little sophomorish trick wouldn't have seemed so biased if they had. The one you just quoted would have sufficed. This is exactly what I said. If you could take a hint you would have realized that.

Where did you get that, anyway? It sounds like something Michael "Mo' Cheeseburgers" Moore would say. Let's keep in mind that something happening "on your watch" is very different than something happening "as a result of your actions." Of course, he didn't cause those things, they just happened on his watch. I guess that makes him unlucky.

I could say that the hurricanes that have hit America so far this year are a result of you living in the Bay Area of CA. You do in fact live in the Bay Area so it must be true. Does that make you lucky or unlucky?

 

Now this is what I call biased.
You mentioned hurricanes, but not a single word about loosing all allies, airlines and over 2000 young American lives + tens of thousands others.
Actually this isn't biased opinion. It is propaganda.

 

propoganda...the guy who hasnt had a thought that wasnt spood fed to him by some media source spouts off about propoganda..

 

Well, of course it's biased. It's an example I used to show an unfair bias against you. An unfair bias such as the one Google used against Bush. Apparently, you weren't able to grasp that. You're so hung up on irrelevant details that you're not seeing the forest, again.

You say that if I mentioned all those others things that it would have been unbiased. I don't see how. Then you say it wasn't bias after all, it was propoganda. I don't see how. You need to argue this point further. It makes no sense as it is. We're having a language barrier problem. You obviously don't understand what bias and propoganda mean.

I agree with Patrick. You indicated previously how proud you were for learning what you know about America and the English language through the media. Don't believe everything you read in a newspaper or hear on TV, as is. Only fools do that.

How do you feel now? Lucky or unlucky?

 

I believe each one of us can form his own definitions.
I would call biased somebody, that checks the subject, gets all the facts available and without further research calls the facts, that don't fit his ideas as a "biased".
When somebody knows the facts and post his opinion without mentioning them, he does propaganda.
When he rejects the facts, that don't fit his opinion as a rule, he is plain stupid.
That's where the slogan "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my mind already made" come from.