April 21, 2010

Obama Should Thank Rush Limbaugh
— Jack M.

So, I'm listening to the EIB network right now (yeah, it's kinda a live blog) and a caller who used to work for Google called in to discuss how Google's search feature bills advertisers. Apparently, Google auctions off ad space and the highest bidder gets to have the ad of their choice come back as the number one result.

Why is this interesting? Because, according to the caller, people who sponsor, say a political campaign's efforts to fundraise off of the Goldman Sachs controversy, pay upwards of 50 (fifty) cents a click when people hit the resulting "sponsored ad" subject only to a daily budget agreed upon in advance.

Once the budget is reached for the day, said ad disappears.

This made me curious, so I entered the search terms "goldman sec" into google, and sure enough, a "sponsored ad" popped up at the very beginning leading me to a certain regime's online political efforts.

So I clicked the link.

Now, theoretically speaking, if I had done this 9 or 10 more times, I would have run upwards of a $5.00 charge towards the regime's daily amount. Meaning that i would have helped to stimulate the economy by divesting the regime of $5.00 they would not otherwise have spent. If, of course I had done that.

A few minutes later, I clicked on those search terms again. Whatever I was doing in those intervening minutes is none of your business. I may have been clicking madly on a certain link, and I may not have been. I'm not telling.

This time, however, the ad was gone.

Meaning that the "daily expenditure limit" for the ad had already been reached. Within 3 minutes of Limbaugh's mentioning it, the ad's "buy" for the day was over.

I wonder if the regime will send Mr. Limbaugh a gift for exposing their ad to a much wider audience than it would have otherwise achieved?

After all, you would think they would thank him. That's what you would think.

Now I'm not necessarily advocating that anyone go online over the next several days and continue to search out this link and click on it. I mean, it would be an awful thing if the regime were to lose a ton of money while gaining little to show for it. It would be a waste is what it would be.

But if you should be a little curious about the whole "Goldman SEC" thing, it is your civic duty to be informed.

That's all I'm saying.

Posted by: Jack M. at 09:47 AM | Comments (188)
Post contains 430 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'd thank Rush Limbaugh if he let me suck his cock.  I love cock.

Posted by: Polly Carboner at April 21, 2010 09:49 AM (VDgKF)

2 I quit using Google a long time ago.

Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2010 09:51 AM (QrA9E)

3 What a nice guy.

Posted by: nine coconuts at April 21, 2010 09:52 AM (DHNp4)

4 If you did this to any democrat type ad, you'd be even more informed. It's kinda fun, too. Learning that is.

Posted by: lorien1973 at April 21, 2010 09:53 AM (IhQuA)

5 You'd think an administration with a former Google insider wouldn't run afoul of this... Oh, and I think you meant that for Craigslist, dude. Just sayin'...

Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at April 21, 2010 09:53 AM (Xu5Z7)

6 Lorien1973, Haven't we been told that "learning if a lifetime process"? I think that just might be one of those so called "important truth" type thingies.

Posted by: Jack M. at April 21, 2010 09:54 AM (Ncr1R)

7 Sometime good blogs have ads for evil.  I always click those evil ads just so I can stay informed.  Not that I'd demonize anyone or I'd ever punch down for that matter.

Posted by: Happy Gene at April 21, 2010 09:55 AM (i/J4I)

8  I googled "gilded sasquatch" but I didn't see any links to FLOTUS.  The White House is dropping the ball.

Posted by: George Orwell at April 21, 2010 09:57 AM (AZGON)

9 Hey, this is fun
"madoff scandal" brings up the progressive democracy now link
 

Posted by: nine coconuts at April 21, 2010 09:57 AM (DHNp4)

10 I'm pretty sure it only bills once per i.p. per day.

But who uses Google?

Posted by: Hotspur at April 21, 2010 09:58 AM (c158/)

11 ...after the money goes from Barry to Google how much of it goes right back to Barry?


Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 21, 2010 09:58 AM (mR7mk)

12 Something else to consider.....if you were to max out the ad clicks and then clear cookies, would it reset the ad limit on your computer? Hmmmm.

Alliteration aside, it's an interesting internet intellectual inquiry, yes?

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 21, 2010 09:58 AM (VY5KX)

13 Jack, are you doing sex to me?

Posted by: Google at April 21, 2010 09:59 AM (AZGON)

14 Jack M., I must thank you for reminding me that I must do my duty as a citizen to stay informed of such vital bits of information.

Also, that reminds me to click on Ace's ads like I'm a rat going for the cocaine.  I do so love when Disney ads come up on the rotation here.  It's such a lovely combination of wholesome family goodness and rampant profanity.

Posted by: alexthechick at April 21, 2010 10:00 AM (8WZWv)

15 I never use google.  But maybe I'll start.

Posted by: April at April 21, 2010 10:00 AM (b0THY)

16 Jack - it is not quite that simple. First - Google only bills for one time from each URL. Second, for sponsored ads they have a formula that allows the ad to show or not show at different times.

Now if everyone here searched and clicked the ad we could deplete their daily budget real fast.

Posted by: iam7545 at April 21, 2010 10:00 AM (/nm9d)

17 search for "carbon footprint"
there are a lot of lefty groups that want our clicks

http://tinyurl.com/2b5nmlc

Posted by: nine coconuts at April 21, 2010 10:02 AM (DHNp4)

18 A few million clicks here, a few million clicks there, pretty soon you're talking about some real money.

Posted by: Zombie Everett Dirkson at April 21, 2010 10:02 AM (H6Jyg)

19 Heh, the add is gone.

Posted by: EyeOnTheWorld at April 21, 2010 10:02 AM (SuNdP)

20 You see all kinds of interesting things if you pay attention to the left's online advertising.  The DSCC is currently running a facebook ad that raises money by suggesting that they'll pay to move Rush Limbaugh to Costa Rica.  Really.  And facebook ads work the same way Google ads do.  I'm not saying that I clicked on tht DSCC ad a few times.  But I'm not saying that I didn't, either.

Posted by: Alan Smithee at April 21, 2010 10:03 AM (F7GbV)

21 IllTemperedCur, That IS an interesting internet intellectual inquiry! Why, there isn't a day that goes by that I don't thank Al Gore for having made these kinds of philosophical discussions between complete strangers entirely possible. I wonder..yes i wonder...what other tantalizing possibilities exist out there?

Posted by: Jack M. at April 21, 2010 10:03 AM (Ncr1R)

22 (EDITED) Izoneguy, please don't spam the comment threads like that. Thanks! Jack M.

Posted by: izoneguy at April 21, 2010 10:03 AM (CLIVI)

23 thank for the tip, Internet Wizard......

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at April 21, 2010 10:03 AM (JrRME)

24 Nice ad you've got there, Mr. Bambi. Be a pity if some morons happened to it.

Posted by: Paulie "the surfer" Corbone at April 21, 2010 10:04 AM (RD7QR)

25 First - Google only bills for one time from each URL.

That's only adsense, not adwords - and even with adsense, it's just within a short period of time. The same user (as long as it's not super rapid clicks) can hit the same account multiple times. Google doesn't specify the exact time frame of course, but it's less than 10 minutes.

IE clicking. hitting back. clicking - may not bill the account twice. but clicking. visiting your pron for a few minutes. clicking -  will definitely bill it twice.

Second, for sponsored ads they have a formula that allows the ad to show or not show at different times.

Depends on the competition and your bid. The higher bid, you'll more likely appear more often, and where you want to appear. Lower bids will bounce around more, but higher bids (top 3 slots) will not go away until the budget is exceeded.

Posted by: lorien1973 at April 21, 2010 10:04 AM (IhQuA)

26 No one even remembers us any longer.  Maybe if we gave lots of cash to the regime in DC, we could get a little oxygen.

Posted by: Lycos, Hotbot and Webcrawler at April 21, 2010 10:04 AM (AZGON)

27 iam7545, I think that's the point of my story. Rush's audience (whoever that might include) clicked on the link so frequently in a 3 minute period that the ad budget was entirely depleted for today. Whether only one click per person counted, or whether multiple clicks did, the audience had the cumulative effect of, umm, moving the ad out of rotation, as it were.

Posted by: Jack M. at April 21, 2010 10:05 AM (Ncr1R)

28 It could be well above 50 cents per "impression."  But regardless, they either reached their limit for the day, or yanked the ad because of Rush.  I'd say it's the latter.  I do think Google incorporates a type of click-fraud prevention wherein one IP address can't repeatedly click on an ad.  Prevents the competition from running up the ad costs on another's business. 

Btw, I stopped using the big "G" months ago.  For now, I Bing.

Posted by: Twinks at April 21, 2010 10:05 AM (VYKgG)

29

That's not a sponsored link. A sponsored link appears in a box across the top or down the right side.

What you saw was the result of an organic search. Someone had to optimize their listing in order for it to appear. That, combined with Google's software which looks for the best fit for the search request,  is the reason for why it appeared first.

You can click all you want. No one gets charged.

 

Posted by: PAguy at April 21, 2010 10:05 AM (3TFhP)

30 nine coconuts at April 21, 2010 02:02 PM (DHNp4)

I'm informed. Are you?

Posted by: lorien1973 at April 21, 2010 10:05 AM (IhQuA)

31 It could be well above 50 cents per "impression."

Adwords is per click, not impression. They dumped impressions years ago. You have to interact with the ad (click) to both be informed and to bill the advertiser.

Posted by: lorien1973 at April 21, 2010 10:06 AM (IhQuA)

32 The Mama administration is kinda creepy, organizing this google ad thing.

Posted by: joeindc44 at April 21, 2010 10:06 AM (QxSug)

33 Google will change the ads it serves you depending on how often you search using the same search terms. They have a tool that you can use to get around that feature, google analytics, but you have to be logged into a specific account to use it.

Bottom line, they are very proactive in looking for ways that people are trying to manipulate them, and they take steps to counter that activity.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at April 21, 2010 10:07 AM (DsU01)

34 Clickity Clickity Click Click Click

Right click on link, open link in new tab, close tab without opening.

Posted by: davidt at April 21, 2010 10:07 AM (aag4W)

35 Is this "Izone" guy a dick, or what?

Posted by: JDFALCON IN VEGAS at April 21, 2010 10:07 AM (jHBnk)

36 A single-party system like China could put an end to this nonsense quickly.  Like banning plastic shopping bags.

At least Google has the good sense to appreciate their Chinese clients.

Posted by: Thomas Friedman, owner of a mansion and admirer of dictators at April 21, 2010 10:07 AM (AZGON)

37 there are a lot of lefty groups that want our clicks

The carbon footprint of server farms is pretty awesome, too.  *grin*

Then there's this: running two searches is equal to the 14g of carbon dioxide produced when boiling a kettle with enough water for one cup of tea.

It may be a happy Lenin's Birfday this year after all.  *click click click*

Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 21, 2010 10:08 AM (mR7mk)

38

I admire you and my dreams are to be like you. 

Here you are, out of the goodness of your heart, clicking on the ad, stimulating the economy.

Me on the other hand, shallow as I am, click the ad to burn up their damn budget.

Shit!  I've got to learn to control my anger!  Those voices!!!!

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at April 21, 2010 10:08 AM (r1h5M)

39 While it's lots of fun to screw with Barry - remember to remove the my.barackobama.com cookie that will be left on your computer.

Protect yourself.

Posted by: oh, Hi Mark at April 21, 2010 10:10 AM (jPEaq)

40 PAGUy, You are incorrect. The ad was a "sponsored link". It was in a yellow field, and, happily for me, carried the tag "sponsored link" with it. It isn't coming up any more. Which I think is a shame. I really do.

Posted by: Jack M. at April 21, 2010 10:10 AM (Ncr1R)

41 Some ingenious techie could probably write a script for this.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at April 21, 2010 10:11 AM (z4es9)

42 Somewhat related, I have been thinking about Odumbass and his stupid "the tea party should be thanking me for a tax cut" (which is bs, but another time), and why then aren't the democrats thanking W for the Bush across the board tax cuts instead of always complaining about them? Huh.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at April 21, 2010 10:12 AM (7VvJB)

43

"My name is Thomas J. Friedman, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht."

Posted by: Thomas Friedman, owner of a mansion and admirer of dictators at April 21, 2010 02:07 PM (AZGON)

Again!

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at April 21, 2010 10:12 AM (w41GQ)

44 I think our budget needs a second look.

Posted by: Goldman Sachs SEC at April 21, 2010 10:12 AM (AZGON)

45 FINANCIAL TERRORISM!#@@!

Posted by: fb at April 21, 2010 10:14 AM (G60Nl)

46 You people never google me. Never.

Posted by: Grover Fucking Cleveland at April 21, 2010 10:16 AM (AZGON)

47 Interesting but isn't takin money out of the regimes pocket and giving it to google about the same as taking money out of the regimes left pocket and putting it in their other left pocket?

Posted by: robtr at April 21, 2010 10:17 AM (fwSHf)

48 And by the way, I am shocked that GS arranges deals where one of their clients buy stuff that other people are willing to sell.
If it was any good, no one would be selling so clearly GS knew is was crap.

These "market" type transactions have got to stop.

Posted by: nine coconuts at April 21, 2010 10:18 AM (DHNp4)

49 You people never google me. Never. Posted by: Grover Fucking Cleveland

The first thing that shows up is Feministing.  No one wants to see that shit.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 21, 2010 10:18 AM (mR7mk)

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 21, 2010 10:18 AM (0fzsA)

51

crap

i did this and accidently hit the "x" key which is located next to the "c" key.

so i typed in Goldman Sex and hit enter by accident on my work computer.

that's fantastic.

Damn you JackM

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 10:19 AM (wuv1c)

52

Jack M.

I wondered why people were getting upset about it! If it indeed appeared in a yellow box, then it was a sponsored link.

Looks like Google took it down. That's my guess.

 

 

 

 

Posted by: PAguy at April 21, 2010 10:19 AM (3TFhP)

53 also, who pays the 50 cents? the federal government or organizing for america?

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 10:20 AM (wuv1c)

54 27 No one even remembers us any longer. Maybe if we gave lots of cash to the regime in DC, we could get a little oxygen.
-----------
Word. And I even had a blimp.

Posted by: Altavista at April 21, 2010 10:20 AM (3K4hn)

55

goldman sachs obama

the above search will get you a highlighted ad to Obama's website.

Posted by: conscious, but randomly incoherent at April 21, 2010 10:20 AM (YVZlY)

56 Interesting, on Yahoo the very top hit was a link to sec.gov, and it doesn't look like a paid link. Same with lycos and hotbot. Not so on bing.

Posted by: George Orwell at April 21, 2010 10:20 AM (AZGON)

57 Now, theoretically speaking, if I had done this 9 or 10 more times, I would have run upwards of a $5.00 charge towards the regime's daily amount.

I've been pulling this nasty trick for years.

Posted by: Warden at April 21, 2010 10:21 AM (TIGTh)

58 29 Btw, I stopped using the big "G" months ago. For now, I Bing.
-----------
Of course. Everyone knows Microsoft is less evil.

Posted by: Anachronda at April 21, 2010 10:21 AM (3K4hn)

59 Am I the only one who thinks that Bing's best ads are everything that Google does? 

Posted by: alexthechick at April 21, 2010 10:21 AM (8WZWv)

60 I've only googled once, when Rosie O' ordered me to google "can fire melt steel". I had to, she scares me.

Posted by: FreakyBoy at April 21, 2010 10:21 AM (uKraB)

61 You people never google me. Never.

That's because you suck.

Posted by: Benjamin Harrison at April 21, 2010 10:21 AM (XIUQZ)

62

I googled Paulie's penis on you won't believe what came up!!!

Take a peek.

http://tiny.cc/doc02

Posted by: paulie esther at April 21, 2010 10:22 AM (Vqruj)

63

It seems like you're suggesting that we click on certain ads with no intention of supporting the advertisers, JackM. It appears like you want people to do this merely to deplete the resources of our political foes.

It comes as no surprise that you would suggest the use of violence against those with whom you disagree.

I'll have no part of your violent, seditious ways, JackM.

Nosireebob.

 

Posted by: Eyjafjallajötroll at April 21, 2010 10:22 AM (cQyWA)

64 The same thing is on the Jerusalem Post Web Front page for Tarrel Clark.  She is the uberliberal democrat that is trying to unseat Michele Bachman here in central Minnesota.

Head on over on over and click a while

Posted by: Bigzy at April 21, 2010 10:22 AM (LRduy)

Posted by: Bust of Churchill at April 21, 2010 10:23 AM (8/DeP)

66

The cost is chump change to these guys. 

The scary thing is the White House putting their crap first in line when people are looking for info.

Posted by: ReallyOldGuy at April 21, 2010 10:23 AM (kNiZP)

67 robtr, They probably would have received that money anyway. I think, the theoretical point to ponder here, is how much money will be "saved or not donated" (heh) by those who will now not see the ad in the rotation. Somehow, I doubt the Obama administration simply wants to move the same amount back and forth between accounts. It is likely they actually wanted to bring new money in. Which will be frustrated by the lack of an ad. Hypothetically.

Posted by: Jack M. at April 21, 2010 10:23 AM (Ncr1R)

68 Say no more, say no more.

Posted by: FUBAR at April 21, 2010 10:23 AM (1fanL)

69

If you google:

Polly Carboner

it takes you to the website "cocksucker.com"

Posted by: conscious, but randomly incoherent at April 21, 2010 10:23 AM (YVZlY)

70 the federal government or organizing for america?

Yes.


Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 21, 2010 10:24 AM (mR7mk)

71 I heard that there is big money (2 to 10$/click) in clicks for legal and medical issues.
so i tried "asbestos exposure" and found a lot of scum bag lawyers that want our clicks (sorry gabe,)

http://tinyurl.com/2euh8g9

Posted by: nine coconuts at April 21, 2010 10:25 AM (DHNp4)

72 66 Ben Roethlisberger should thank Commissioner Goodell Obama .

Posted by: Bust of Churchill at April 21, 2010 02:23 PM (8/DeP)

FIFY.

Posted by: conscious, but randomly incoherent at April 21, 2010 10:25 AM (YVZlY)

73

I call bullshit on Ben.   Bullshit Ben.   You were looking for Nude Tim Geithner pics.

You need to go to TINY URL for that.

Posted by: paulie esther at April 21, 2010 10:25 AM (Vqruj)

74 I hope you assholes aren't  thinking about some guerrilla clicking. 

I mean that the shit we do, don't you tea-bagging SOB's start doing it to us.

Next thing you know you assholes will start jamming the phone lines of our offices with stupid calls.

Posted by: Axelrod, the man at April 21, 2010 10:26 AM (vSiVD)

75


9  I googled "gilded sasquatch" but I didn't see any links to FLOTUS.  The White House is dropping the ball.

Posted by: George Orwell at April 21, 2010 01:57 PM (AZGON)



+1,000,000,000,000

(in honor of our debt)

and thread winner, right out of the gate.


Posted by: s'moron at April 21, 2010 10:26 AM (UaxA0)

76 Next thing you know you assholes will start jamming the phone lines of our offices with stupid calls.

Just try it. Line's busy.

Posted by: Mary Landrieu at April 21, 2010 10:27 AM (mR7mk)

77 ReallyOldGuy, That is a very good point. Which, as a thought experiment, would make a White House sponsored ad's sudden removal from the rotation more like an additional feature than a bug, no? Just grist for the mill. That's all.

Posted by: Jack M. at April 21, 2010 10:27 AM (Ncr1R)

78

Am I the only one who thinks that Bing's best ads are everything that Google does? 

Just once I wish I was Bing.

Posted by: Tommy D. at April 21, 2010 10:27 AM (cQyWA)

79

I googled Pitchforks and wow!!

http://tiny.cc/8gp28

She is hot.

 

Posted by: paulie esther at April 21, 2010 10:28 AM (Vqruj)

80 I googled Pitchforks and wow!! http://tiny.cc/8gp28 She is hot. I'll bet you didn't know they were my live models when I painted that. Those two are old as the hills.

Posted by: Grant Wood at April 21, 2010 10:31 AM (u8gk2)

81 Here's another group that maybe should gets some calls???

Goldman Sachs & Co Address: 85 Broad St Fl Grnd
New York, NY 10004-2456 Phone Numbers: 1-212-902-1000
1-404-846-7200
2129021000

Posted by: Kemp at April 21, 2010 10:32 AM (vSiVD)

82

Ben Roethlisberger should thank Commissioner Goodell.

 

he shouldn't be suspended. He wasn't convicted of a crime, he wasn't charged with a crime, he is only guilty of screwing f'ed up women.

I can't believe they suspended him for 6 games.

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 10:32 AM (wuv1c)

83 You're all on notice. By the way, we're dusting off the Alien and Sedition Act, and just removing the Alien part.

Posted by: flag@whitehouse.gov at April 21, 2010 10:32 AM (u8gk2)

84 A federal appeals court has reinstated the ban on federal funding funding to ACORN http://bit.ly/dBss1A

Posted by: conscious, but randomly incoherent at April 21, 2010 10:33 AM (YVZlY)

85


he is only guilty of screwing underage drinking f'ed up women to whom he had fed alcohol all night.

FIFY

Posted by: s'moron at April 21, 2010 10:33 AM (UaxA0)

86

I googled:

moronettes

it took me to www.bunk.com

Posted by: conscious, but randomly incoherent at April 21, 2010 10:33 AM (YVZlY)

87


"While President Obama assails the culture of greed and recklessness practiced by the men of Goldman Sachs, his administration is infested with them. The White House can no more disown Government Sachs than Da Boss-in-chief can disown Chicago politics.

Obama is headed to Wall Street on Thursday to demand “financial regulatory reform” — just as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed civil suit against Goldman Sachs for mortgage-related fraud. Question the timing? Darn tootin’. There are no coincidences in the perpetually orchestrated Age of O. Everyone from disgraced former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to analysts at the Brookings Institution and Barclays Capital to the GOP leadership and Rush Limbaugh has noted the reeking political opportunism in the air.

As the New York Post reported Tuesday, the Democratic National Committee immediately bought sponsored Internet ads on Google that direct web surfers who type in “Goldman Sachs SEC” to Obama’s fundraising site. “It’s time to hold the big banks accountable,” the money-grubbing DNC message bellows. But just like his crony capitalist predecessor George W. Bush, Obama has relied on Goldman Sachs and Wall Street power brokers to engineer massive government interventions to “rescue” failing businesses with the tax dollars of ordinary Americans.

While irony-challenged Democratic candidates like mob-linked banker Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois (who hopes to fill ObamaÂ’s old Senate seat) call on Republicans to return their fat-cat Goldman Sachs donations, the Democrats are silent on the $994,795 in Goldman Sachs campaign cash that Obama bagged. The class-warfare Dems are also mum on all the presidentÂ’s Goldman Sachs men sitting in the catbirdÂ’s seat:

...


Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 21, 2010 10:33 AM (0fzsA)

88

goldman sachs obama

the above search will get you a highlighted ad to Obama's website.

 

clicked it 50 times, cost them 25 bucks

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 10:34 AM (wuv1c)

89 It's just one more way Obama is bringing you GoodThink through your Ministry of Propaganda.

Posted by: Adjoran at April 21, 2010 10:34 AM (3hg5M)

90 and found a lot of scum bag lawyers that want our clicks (sorry gabe,)

I must object to this.  I'm the one who works in the evvvvviiiiillll personal injury field.

Posted by: alexthechick at April 21, 2010 10:34 AM (8WZWv)

91 #87

$50 Grand?  WTF?  Ace, do a fund raiser and buy it!

Posted by: Kemp at April 21, 2010 10:35 AM (vSiVD)

92
Goldman Sachs runs the administration.

"...,.– Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler is Obama’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission head. He was confirmed despite heated congressional grilling over his role, as Reuters described it, “as a high-level Treasury official in a 2000 law that exempted the $58 trillion credit default swap market from oversight. The financial instruments have been blamed for amplifying global financial turmoil.” Gensler said he was sorry — hey, it worked for tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner — and was quickly installed to guard the henhouse.

– Goldman Sachs kept White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on a $3,000 monthly retainer while he worked as Clinton’s chief fundraiser, as first reported by Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney. The financial titans threw in another $50,000 to become the Clinton primary campaign’s top funder. Emanuel received nearly $80,000 in cash from Goldman Sachs during his four terms in Congress — investments that have reaped untold rewards, as Emanuel assumed a leading role championing the trillion-dollar TARP banking bailout law."


-MM

 

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 21, 2010 10:36 AM (0fzsA)

93 #89
It's gone now!

Posted by: Kemp at April 21, 2010 10:37 AM (vSiVD)

94
Sweet Mother...

– Former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson serves under Geithner as his top deputy and overseer of TARP bailout — $10 billion of which went to Goldman Sachs. Left-leaning government watchdog Melanie Sloan of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington responded: “It makes it appear that they are saying one thing and doing another.” Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation noted that, while at Goldman Sachs, Patterson lobbied against executive pay limits that Obama had crusaded for as senator (before, that is, his administration carved out exemptions for AIG). While Patterson agreed to recuse himself on any Goldman Sachs-related issues or related policy concerns, Blumenthal wrote, it “still creates a serious conflict for Geithner, as Treasury is being partly managed by a former Goldman lobbyist. Geithner is also placed in a tough position considering that his chief of staff is limited in the areas in which he can work (supposedly).”

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 21, 2010 10:37 AM (0fzsA)

95

he is only guilty of screwing underage drinking f'ed up women to whom he had fed alcohol all night.

FIFY

not a big fan of free will or personal responsibility. The girl took those shots voluntarily. Just because i offer kids candy from my van doesn't mean they HAVE to take it.

 

Also, if you read the read the police reports, the girl was drinking prior to the event, she was 20, so she was drinking illegally, it is the bars responsibility to not sell alcohol to minors. And she was wearing a name tag that said "DTF", which for those of you that are older means "Down to Fornicate" but a different F word.

Read the police report, it is all their. This was a drunk college girl party skank, who regretted doing something. Not the first time it has happened.

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 10:37 AM (wuv1c)

96 Heh, the market has dropped 60 points in front of I Wons interview with CNBC, Obama is a day traders wet dream.

Posted by: robtr at April 21, 2010 10:37 AM (fwSHf)

97 Now this is a great way to punch down.

Posted by: Abby Adams at April 21, 2010 10:37 AM (pLTLS)

98 My friends, I keep googling "illegal immigration" and seeing my picture. I am the voice of Arizona, mis amigos.

Posted by: John McCain at April 21, 2010 10:37 AM (u8gk2)

99 Obama website not at top of Google after goldman sec entered second time I did it.

Posted by: kansas at April 21, 2010 10:38 AM (mka2b)

100 Gay vs. Bi catfight. Fun stuff: http://tinyurl.com/y83ecpw Nobody suspects the gay inquisition. (H/T WeaselZippers)

Posted by: FreakyBoy at April 21, 2010 10:38 AM (uKraB)

101

Kemp,

 

yeah it is gone now. i am looking for other combinations of the word

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 10:39 AM (wuv1c)

102 Jack,

Hate to burst your bubble, but I know from a friend that pays for Google advertising, that per-click reimbursement is based on individual IP addresses per day.

In other words, you click once, the advertiser pays $0.25.

Click 100 times. . .the advertiser pays $0.25.

The clicks are logged, so if you're clicking on a link 1000 times, the advertiser can access that record.  (Note that there is nothing illegal about clicking on a Google link 10,000 times if you like).

If you want to cost the advertiser more, you have to do your clicks from different IP addresses and/or spread them over multiple days.

Posted by: looking closely at April 21, 2010 10:40 AM (6Q9g2)

103 Bisexual men sue gay group, claim bias Three bisexual men are suing a national gay athletic league, saying they were discriminated against during the Gay Softball World Series held in Seattle two years ago This story ought to appear when googling "people with too much time on their hands."

Posted by: George Orwell at April 21, 2010 10:40 AM (AZGON)

104 Jack - you are a little off. You are generally right in how it works, but google and others do have click fraud prevention measures in place, so that multiple clicks from the same IP address in the same day do not translate into multiple charges to the advertiser (which is too bad, in this case). You are correct about the daily budget, but you can also set it so that there is no effective daily budget. I have a feeling that Rush discussing it cost them upwards of $100,000, again, depending on their budget. You can also get into different levels of complexity on term matching (broad match, phrase match, or exact match), and you can also vary how much you spend (or not at all) at different times of day, differnt states, countries, etc. as I said, you can get into many complexities if need be. Also, in some cases of extreme click "abuse" google may simply filter the sponsored term results from the results you see on your computer. I have been a heavy user of google adwords and paid them quite a bit of money over the past several years, and I am very familiar with how it works. I quickly set up a test term yesterday using the "goldman sachs sec" search term, and google will tell you the estimated price per click amount you need to bid in order to be on the first page of sponsored results. In this case it is $1.00, although that is just an estimate from google, and not terribly accurate - especially in this case, as there are only a couple of sponsored results listed anyway. My estimate would be something like 50 to 75 cents per unique click. NOTE: I would be happy to lend whatever knowledge I have on this topic to you if you need any further information it would be my pleasure if if it helps this blog (or causes problems for the administration) - just email me.

Posted by: kjl291 at April 21, 2010 10:41 AM (rlmtU)

105

Ben, (c'mon really? that's your nic?)

An NFL Quarterback should have MUCH better judgment than to fuck a stumbling drunk coed. 

It reflects poorly on the league, and Goodall was in his rights to suspend Rothl.

Is 6 games too much?  Maybe, but that's a judgment call, too.  But to say he shouldn't have suspended Rothl. is just plain wrong.

Posted by: s'moron at April 21, 2010 10:41 AM (UaxA0)

106 Ben,

Link to police report??

Posted by: Kemp at April 21, 2010 10:42 AM (vSiVD)

107 Looking closely, That could very well be true. Multiple clicks from the same IP address may have no impact whatsoever. 20 million clicks from Rush's audience, seem to have had an effect though.... Assuming, of course, that anyone actually did this. Maybe so, maybe not. I wouldn't know.

Posted by: Jack M. at April 21, 2010 10:43 AM (Ncr1R)

108

Ben,

Link to police report??

 

sure, give me a few minutes. i read it a couple of days ago.

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 10:44 AM (wuv1c)

109 Can anyone tell me how much google charges per click for a sponsored link when searching on "hobo hunting vodka supermodel?" This is purely theoretical, of course.

Posted by: George Orwell at April 21, 2010 10:44 AM (AZGON)

110 I noticed this yesterday. I blogged about it in the morning and last night checked and it was gone. I figured maybe they pulled it out of shame, but Rush cleared things up for me. Besides, Obama has no shame.

Posted by: JWF at April 21, 2010 10:44 AM (1l37M)

111 Gay vs. Bi catfight.

Fun stuff:

http://tinyurl.com/y83ecpw

Nobody suspects the gay inquisition.

(H/T WeaselZippers)

Posted by: FreakyBoy at April 21, 2010 02:38 PM (uKraB)

Wait until the transvestites hear about this.  Nobody even told them that the other perverts were going to be playing with their balls.

Posted by: Attorney General at April 21, 2010 10:45 AM (xxgag)

112 #106

Didn't Google get into a fight with some advertisers over the click abuse by the company's competitors?  I seem to remember something about it and Google quickly giving credit for the fraud.

Posted by: Kemp at April 21, 2010 10:45 AM (vSiVD)

113

Ah, poor dirtbag Ben (not you, AoSHQ Ben, the shitstain Stealers Ben!)

Actions >>>> reactions and all that jazz.

Six games seems just about right to me for a guy that has been in this precarious situation before.

/no sympathy.

 

 

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 21, 2010 10:47 AM (pLTLS)

114 AG: How fast to you think the gays would file a lawsuit against the "North American Heterosexual Amateur Athletic Alliance"?

Posted by: FreakyBoy at April 21, 2010 10:50 AM (uKraB)

115 O/T via Allah at Hot Air

Stalinesque purge at MSOBC : Donny Deutch taken off for upsetting Keefums!

Chris Matthews unavailable for comment

Posted by: kbdabear at April 21, 2010 10:51 AM (sYxEE)

116 Goodell suspended him for buying drinks; no evidence of sex or rape, the DA didn't even have probable cause to continue the investigation, much less charge him. Six games for buying drinks for 20yo girls running around with DTF buttons (Down To F___) -- Goodell must be shorting NFL stocks.

Posted by: Jean at April 21, 2010 10:51 AM (OlnxK)

117 How come when I type in moronette's exposing their breasts I get whitehouse.gov?

Posted by: robtr at April 21, 2010 10:52 AM (fwSHf)

118 This was a drunk college girl party skank, who regretted doing something. Not the first time it has happened.

That's exactly the point--this is the second "drunk party girl skank" accusing Benburger of sexual assault in less than a year.  If he'd just paid a sober professional there'd be no "NFL players are rapists brutes" international publicity.  Are they just supposed to let him stumble around stickin' his dick in "drunk party girl skanks" and making all the players who don't look like dicks until one night a woman shows up in an ER with injuries?  (And then sues the league because everyone knew he had a problem and no one came to him like a fucking man and told him to stop fucking "drunk party girl skanks"...)  Or until he ends up like Steve McNair?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 21, 2010 10:54 AM (mR7mk)

119 #109

You're right that a "heavy clicking" campaign by a group of people (eg Rush's audience) *should* cause the advertiser to have to pay for all the clicks up to whatever their daily maximum budget is (assuming they have one).

*BUT* in the event of that sort of coordinated "attack" the advertiser might well complain to Google about it, and perhaps get a partial or even total refund.

Remember, Google wants this ad revenue.  If anyone can just come and spam-attack advertisers with coordinated clicking, that would make advertisers unwilling to list ads on Google, thereby destroying Google's business model.

So its in Google's interest to make sure that its clients are satisfied and don't have to pay for click-attacks like this.

Posted by: looking closely at April 21, 2010 10:54 AM (6Q9g2)

120

Kemp, here i think it is page 15 of the police report.

 

http://tinyurl.com/2fl6u4z

 

the girls had been bar hopping that night, so they were already drunk.

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 10:54 AM (wuv1c)

121

Is this not considered "click fraud"? I think it may be.

More troubling is the fact that they even had the ad placed at all. I have never felt so manipulated in my life as I have this past year. This administration is beyond belief.

Posted by: Texmom at April 21, 2010 10:55 AM (WzN8I)

122 How come when I type in moronette's exposing their breasts I get whitehouse.gov?

Posted by: robtr at April 21, 2010 02:52 PM (fwSHf)

That must be a hold over from the Clinton years

Posted by: TheQuietMan at April 21, 2010 10:56 AM (1Jaio)

123 I started playing around with different search terms. Fun stuff. But you morons never told me that the First Lady had also thrown a first pitch to open the MLB season.

Her form is better than JugEars. Must be the sculpted arms.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 21, 2010 10:56 AM (VY5KX)

124
Gibbs is lying again.

Drudge link.  Obama won't give back his Goldman Sachs contributions.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 21, 2010 10:56 AM (0fzsA)

125  I googled "gilded sasquatch" but I didn't see any links to FLOTUS.  The White House is dropping the ball.

Try "Worf Grows a Garden."

Posted by: Filly at April 21, 2010 10:56 AM (onwJ3)

126
Gibbs is the biggest liar press secretary to ever take in air:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied President Obama took any PAC money from Goldman Sachs, therefore he will not return any of it.

GIBBS: "Anybody that contributed to the campaign at any point knew where the President stood on Wall Street."

How is that an answer?


Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 21, 2010 10:59 AM (0fzsA)

127

Ah, poor dirtbag Ben (not you, AoSHQ Ben, the shitstain Stealers Ben!)

Actions >>>> reactions and all that jazz.

Six games seems just about right to me for a guy that has been in this precarious situation before.

/no sympathy.

Read the story of the girl from Nevada making the accusation, in civil court no less. She is insane. She made up an imaginary boyfriend in the military.

I will agree, he shouldn't be boning drunk skanks, that never helped anyone, but the NFL shouldn't be the morality police, nor do they have the moral authority to do so since  Ray Lewis who was in fact charged with a double homicide is still playing in the league.

I get that the NFL can do what it wants, but Ben is guilty of nothing more than stupidy. He wasn't charged or convicted.  He's only guilty in public opinion, which thank god can't put people behind bars.

i am not saying you should have sympathy for him, i'm just sayin i can't believe they are suspending him for 6 games, when the league is filled with admitted and convicted wife, drug users, dealer, etc and they aren't suspended.

Here in pittsburgh, James Harrison, the line backer admitted to beating his wife and he wasn't suspended.  Santonio Homes before he was suspended had also admitted to beating his girlfiriend and had been caught smoking weed by the police.

it's just hypocritical thats all

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 10:59 AM (wuv1c)

128 Ben

Thanks, why the fuck didn't his body guards stop this shit?  What is he paying them for?

Posted by: Kemp at April 21, 2010 11:00 AM (vSiVD)

129 Washington Post reporting that the Geico guy who dissed FreedomWorks got fired.

Posted by: the peanut gallery at April 21, 2010 11:01 AM (NurK6)

130 Heather - he didn't have sex with her, the only credible evidence in the police report is he talked to her in a hallway (not the bathroom). Your on this site, you know the media are idiots - why do believe them in this case?

Posted by: Jean at April 21, 2010 11:02 AM (6Njk9)

131

Gibbs is lying again.
And in other news, water is still wet.

Posted by: Damn Skippy at April 21, 2010 11:03 AM (VDgKF)

132

 Washington Post reporting that the Geico guy who dissed FreedomWorks got fired.

to steal a line from NRO

I guess Geico realized the voice over job was so easy a caveman can do it.

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 11:03 AM (wuv1c)

133 Does anyone here know what actually happened at the SC TP rally?

Posted by: moviegique at April 21, 2010 11:04 AM (ey5wt)

134 Brilliant!

Posted by: Andy at April 21, 2010 11:05 AM (5Rurq)

135

 Washington Post reporting that the Geico guy who dissed FreedomWorks got fired.




This is news to me. Dammit, why aren't these stories posted on AoS? I get most of my news from this site. For fuck's sake, nobody gives a shit about 6 homosexual protesters in Washington D.C.

Posted by: Atom Ant at April 21, 2010 11:06 AM (uFokq)

136 Kemp - stop what shit? Nothing happened, no sex, no rape, the girls were wearing braclets that identified them as over 21, Ben didn't serve them - the bar - he paid the tab. He goes out with 3 sober wingmen -- 2 cops and a PR flack, and still gets nailed.

Posted by: Jean at April 21, 2010 11:06 AM (OlnxK)

137

Ben

Thanks, why the fuck didn't his body guards stop this shit?  What is he paying them for?

stop what shit? He probably hired them to keep people away from him, not to stop him from boning skanks.

Let's be honest her people. Wealthy famous men like screwing women. Many women(not AoSHQ women of course) like having sex with rich famous men. 

This girl probably had sex with Roethlisberger, then regretted it when she realized that's all it was going to be, sex, and not relationship or anything else.

Even college bar skanks have remorse i guess.

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 11:07 AM (wuv1c)

138

 Washington Post reporting that the Geico guy who dissed FreedomWorks got fired.

to steal a line from NRO

I guess Geico realized the voice over job was so easy a caveman can do it.



The Geico lizard left ranting insulting messages on Freedomworks voice mail

It wasn't his fault, Flo from Progressive made him do it


Posted by: kbdabear at April 21, 2010 11:08 AM (sYxEE)

139

129  Morals clauses. They are there for a reason.

How many times does this  adult fuck up have to find himself at the "wrong place, at the wrong time" with some "psycho girl" that's looking to take advantage of the situation.

He needs to be accountable for his poor choices criminal in nature or not.

 

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 21, 2010 11:08 AM (pLTLS)

140 Morals clauses. They are there for a reason.

How many times does this  adult fuck up have to find himself at the "wrong place, at the wrong time" with some "psycho girl" that's looking to take advantage of the situation.

He needs to be accountable for his poor choices criminal in nature or not.

 

I would agree 100% if the NFL was consistent, but the aren't. If every NFL were actually held to that standard, every team would have 4-5 plays under suspension right now.

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 11:09 AM (wuv1c)

141 If the ad was at the top, it was at l;east a buck a hit.  It would be smart to hit the ad early and often to cost these snakes dough used to steal our freedom.

Posted by: Valiant at April 21, 2010 11:09 AM (UKSRV)

142 Washington Post reporting that the Geico guy who dissed FreedomWorks got fired.

to steal a line from NRO

I guess Geico realized the voice over job was so easy a caveman can do it.



The Geico lizard left ranting insulting messages on Freedomworks voice mail

It wasn't his fault, Flo from Progressive made him do it

 

who knew that even the voiceover industry in hollywood was far lefty. He says he was motivated to make the call because of the racial slurs at the healthcare bill signing. It looks to me like the MSM has incited more violence agaisnt people using lies than the tea partiers have.

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 11:11 AM (wuv1c)

143 Re rape charges/suspension

Back when Kobie Bryant was charged with rape I did some research on these kinds of things.

The overall statistics for the charge of rape are really bad. 60% of all the rape charges are false. When you add in celebrity/wealth status to the male the percentage goes through the roof.

Suspension in this case is BS. 

Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2010 11:11 AM (QrA9E)

144
re: the Donny Douche story above...

if you want to know how far removed MSNBC is from reality...

Posted by: Atom Ant at April 21, 2010 11:12 AM (uFokq)

145

I would agree 100% if the NFL was consistent, but the aren't. If every NFL were actually held to that standard, every team would have 4-5 plays under suspension right now

And I might agree with that if he weren't the most high profile player on the team. He can't reap with benefits of being the focal point of the team without taking the consequences for that privilege.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 21, 2010 11:13 AM (pLTLS)

146

eh...friggin yahoo goes to the washington compost...of course.

 

Posted by: dananjcon at April 21, 2010 11:14 AM (pr+up)

147

Re rape charges/suspension

Back when Kobie Bryant was charged with rape I did some research on these kinds of things.

The overall statistics for the charge of rape are really bad. 60% of all the rape charges are false. When you add in celebrity/wealth status to the male the percentage goes through the roof.

Suspension in this case is BS. 

 I will be honest, I knew a lot of girls in college who put themselves in these situations.

I am not playing the "she wore a short skirt and deserved it" card, but I will say that if you get black out drunk at a party and flirt very heavily with a guy and something sexual happens, then maybem, just maybe you share a certain degree of responsibility.

My guess is that this girl had sex with Roethlisberger, then regretted and made up a rape story.  Like the Duke Rape case. The girl was a hooker, had sex with a bunch or guys, then was mocked by them and decided to get even by making up a rape story.

Rapes happen, and the men who commit them, especially the serial offenders should be punished to the full extent of the law, but lets not pretend that all people who cry "rape" are telling the truth.

 

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 11:16 AM (wuv1c)

148 #123

Clicking on an ad link to see where it goes, isn't "click fraud", even if every single member from Rush's audience does it.

Its fine to click on any ad you like, even if you have no intent of ever buying the product.  Did you sign an agreement with the advertiser or Google that you would only click on links that you read or had commercial interest in?  Non-followthrough clicks are part of the risk that advertisers take in running internet ads (or indeed that any advertiser takes in advertising ANY product).

It might be "click fraud" if I were to run an application that automatically generated several hundred new IP addresses per day (or spammed IP addresses) each generating a click, with the express intent of damaging the advertiser.  But that's sort of a different thing, isn't it?


Posted by: looking closely at April 21, 2010 11:17 AM (PwGfd)

149

the Donny Douche story above...

if you want to know how
far removed MSNBC is from reality...

the sad thing is that they are being so loyal to a man who isn't loyal. Keith Olbermann will burn MSNBC the first time he is offered more money or a better job elsewhere. This man has a history of burned bridges everywhere he has worked.

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 11:17 AM (wuv1c)

150 My guess is that this girl had sex with Roethlisberger, then regretted and made up a rape story.

From what I have seen on this story she was in it for the money from the get-go. She probably wasn't even drunk.

Posted by: Vic at April 21, 2010 11:17 AM (QrA9E)

151 Ben, wtf are you saying -- there was no evidence of sex; she didn't even claim she had sex with him on several of differing statements. The DA wasn't even considering rape, he was looking into sexual assault, which is anything from pinching her ass to a bj. None of which her stories or the medical report confirmed. It is amazing how the media can f--- up a story so bad, that you, a steeler fan living in Allegheny co (IIRC) get misinformed.

Posted by: Jean at April 21, 2010 11:19 AM (6Njk9)

152

Ben, you're not distinguishing between the criminal charges, which were dropped and the perception issue that governs his contract with the league.

 

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 21, 2010 11:19 AM (pLTLS)

153 Heather - he didn't have sex with her, the only credible evidence in the police report is he talked to her in a hallway (not the bathroom).  Your on this site, you know the media are idiots - why do believe them in this case?

I was looking at the actual report, which you have dismissed out of hand. *shrug*

But anyway, you have convinced me.  White quarterbacks with Super Bowl rings should be able to drunkenly flash their dicks at "drunk party skanks" in semi-public places, and their employer shouldn't be able to say or do a damn thing.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 21, 2010 11:20 AM (mR7mk)

154 "Like the Duke Rape case. The girl was a hooker, had sex with a bunch or guys, then was mocked by them and decided to get even by making up a rape story."

Still buying the "something happened in that house that night" meme?

Posted by: the peanut gallery at April 21, 2010 11:20 AM (NurK6)

155

Ben Roethlisberger signed his contract. He is a fucking dirt ball. NFL contracts have good citizen/morality clauses.

Fucking drunken 20 year olds in Night Club bathrooms is bad publicity for the League. 

If you cannot understand why Roethlisberger is being hammered.   You may be retarded.

Posted by: paulie esther at April 21, 2010 11:24 AM (Vqruj)

156  But that's sort of a different thing, isn't it?


Posted by: looking closely at April 21, 2010 03:17 PM (PwGfd)

Click fraud is when a search company or an ad company causes the ads to be clicked to generate revenue for themselves. Such as if their employees did it or wrote a program to do it.

An individual can click on anything they want as many times as they want for whatever reason they want.

Posted by: robtr at April 21, 2010 11:25 AM (fwSHf)

157

Heather - he didn't have sex with her, the only credible evidence in the police report is he talked to her in a hallway (not the bathroom).  Your on this site, you know the media are idiots - why do believe them in this case?

I was looking at the actual report, which you have dismissed out of hand. *shrug*

But anyway, you have convinced me.  White quarterbacks with Super Bowl rings should be able to drunkenly flash their dicks at "drunk party skanks" in semi-public places, and their employer shouldn't be able to say or do a damn thing.

why do you have to make this a race thing?(heh)

I don't think the Steelers suspended him, the NFL did. If it was the Steelers, then that is fine, it is their prerogative, but the NFL suspended him for bad moral judgement, when their league is filled with wife beaters, real rapists, drug additct, etc that aren't being suspended.

 

She had .20 blood Alcohol level, she wore a name tag saying she was "down to fornicate", she went into a dark hallway with a man. She clearly was all class.

 

Also as a moron, i reserve the right to flash my weiner at whoever i damn well please.

you just wait til ace acutally puts together the AoSHQ Las Vegas Junket

Posted by: Ben at April 21, 2010 11:27 AM (wuv1c)

158 Heather - funny she didn't mention that to the cop on the scene or in several other interviews, and that none of the cops or bartenders in the room and hallway saw it either. A flimsy accusation that she may have seen his pecker is along way from raping drunk girls in bathrooms.

Posted by: Jean at April 21, 2010 11:29 AM (tJF9l)

159

Ben try to focus.  I know it's difficult but the subject is BEN ROETHLISBERGER and his CONTRACT with the NFL.

Her blood alcohol level and any other players misdeads are not the issue.


Thanking you in advance for your cooperation.

Posted by: paulie esther at April 21, 2010 11:34 AM (Vqruj)

160 I guess I'm an idiot what with having adblock and such--I never see any google ads.


Posted by: jimmuy at April 21, 2010 11:35 AM (xJzIj)

161 #149

Depending on the series in question, approximately 1/3 of rape allegations are demonstrably false.  In some series the proportion is quite a bit higher. 

I've recently heard from a physician who was in charge of a particular Bible belt state's sexual crimes unit (his job was to conduct physical exams and document findings) that when he got the "victim" in a room privately, away from their friends and family, and asked them to come clean, roughly half the time, the victim would admit that the sex was consentual, and the rape charge was made because of embarrassment or for other reasons.

I know of a case where a 19 year old had sex with a 16 year old, who later claimed "rape".  He said the act was completely consentual.  She said force was involved.   Charges were eventually dropped after eyewitnesses came forward describing the two holding hands and walking in public at a local mall two hours after the alleged "rape" occurred.  (Is that something you do with someone who rapes you?).

So yeah, not only do false rape charges happen, they're depressingly common.  Fortunately, much of the time false allegations don't lead to criminal charges, but often then do.

Posted by: looking closely at April 21, 2010 11:35 AM (PwGfd)

162 and Ben "she went into a dark hallway with a man" - she went into that hallway with a sober cop or bartender (unclear who) - who put her in a chair because her drunk ass couldn't stand-up. Ben didn't take her back there, she was already there - on the way to the pisser - in full view of bar staff and a cop.

Posted by: Jean at April 21, 2010 11:36 AM (h0rZ/)

163 The Obama administration thinks it has discovered the perfect formula for cramming legislation through in a hurry: demonize some prominent firm within an industry you plan to redesign, and then pass a law that has nothing to do with the accusation against the demonized firm. They did this with health insurance and now theyÂ’re trying it with finance.

With health insurance, the demon was Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of California, which Obama accused of raising premiums by “anywhere from 35 to 39 percent.” Why didn’t some curious reporter interview a single person who actually paid 39 percent more, or quote from a letter announcing such an increase? Because it didn’t happen. Insurance premiums are regulated by the states, and California wouldn’t approve such a boost. Yet the media’s uncritical outrage over that 39 percent rumor helped to enact an intrusive, redistributive health-care bill that has nothing to do with health-insurance premiums (which remain regulated by the states).

Today, the new demon du jour is Goldman Sachs, a handy scapegoat to promote hasty financial rejiggering schemes. The SECÂ’s suspiciously times civil suit against Goldman looks as flimsy as last monthÂ’s health-insurance story. It also looks unlikely to win in court.

“This is a non-scandal. The securities in question, so-called synthetic collateralized debt obligations, cannot exist unless somebody is betting that they will lose value.” In such a zero-sum contest, the big investors who went long knew perfectly well that other investors had to be taking the other side of the bet. Goldman lost $90 billion by betting this CDO would go up; John Paulson went short.

Columnists have moralized about the unfairness of the short investor (Paulson) negotiating the terms of this deal with a long investor, ACA Management, which had the last word. This too, notes Mallaby, “is another non-scandal. An investor who wants to bet against a bundle of mortgages is entitled to suggest what should go into the bundle. The buyer is equally entitled to make counter-suggestions. As the SEC’s complaint states clearly, the lead buyer in this deal, a boutique called ACA that specialized in mortgage securities, did precisely that.”

Like the earlier fuming about Anthem California, this new SEC publicity stunt is likewise irrelevant to the pending legislation. Congress hopes to get standardized derivatives traded on an exchange. But synthetic CDOs dealing with customized bundles of securities could not possibly be traded on an exchange and would therefore be untouched by reform.

Losses sustained by a few financial speculators on one exotic derivative had nothing to do with the start of a global recession in December 2007 or the related financial crisis of September 2008. The core of the latter crisis was mortgage-backed securities per se, yet Goldman was only the twelfth-largest private MBS issuer in 2007. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were and are the biggest risk, so any reform that excludes them is a fraud.

The SECÂ’s dubious civil suit against Goldman is a wasteful diversion at best. It has nothing to do with the Obama administrationÂ’s suicidal impulse to impose new regulations and taxes on banks to encourage them to lend more.
http://tinyurl.com/2avkdd7

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at April 21, 2010 11:36 AM (0fzsA)

164 paulie the issue isn't ben or her, it's the ability of the media to so screw up public perception.

Posted by: Jean at April 21, 2010 11:39 AM (PjevJ)

165

Jean, you're saying the media made this grown man hop in bed with some desirable skanks that were after a bit of fame and money?

Wow. They're even more vile than I initially suspected!

Poor Ben. It's just *never* his faults these women "find him" is it?

Please consider this my "no" for the pity party for this piece of pig filth.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 21, 2010 11:47 AM (pLTLS)

166 OMG! I LOL'D!

Posted by: Owen Kellogg at April 21, 2010 12:02 PM (rfZbE)

167 As of this hour Goldman Sachs SEC - #2 on the google trends "Hot Searches".

"miserable failure" is #1.  Seems the Obamabots are stuck in some sort of "it's Bush's fault" infinite loop.  They need to be rebooted.  Rush really does occupy the empty space between their ears.

Posted by: rockhead at April 21, 2010 12:07 PM (RykTt)

168 "goldman sachs sec" is currently the #2 search on google when i punched it in a few minutes ago..... the graph is amusing, and evidently mostly moron caused. %-)

Posted by: redc1c4 at April 21, 2010 12:12 PM (d1FhN)

169 #157

On paper it had nothing to do with rape allegations.  The specific reason the NFL cited for suspending him was for "purchasing or facilitating the purchase of alcohol" for minors.

--
“As the District Attorney concluded, the extensive investigatory record shows that you contributed to the irresponsible consumption of alcohol by purchasing (or facilitating the purchase of) alcoholic beverages for underage college students, at least some of whom were likely already intoxicated. There is no question that the excessive consumption of alcohol that evening put the students and yourself at risk.
--

Reading between the lines, Roethlisberger didn't even prospectively buy these girls drinks. . .he just paid the bill for drinks they already bought.  Hard to see how he was contributing to irresponsible consumption by paying for drinks that were already consumed!

IMO, the NFL has every right to ding him just for being involved in what evolved into a scandal, but all things considered this is fairly weak stuff considering that all of the serious charges were dropped and considering the level of hooliganism otherwise tolerated in the NFL.   He's being zapped here more for PR reasons than for what he did.

If Roethlisberger had gotten into a drunken barfight and sent a few people to the hospital (arguably worse than paying the bill for a few drunk chicks), the NFL would probably have ignored this entirely.

Posted by: looking closely at April 21, 2010 12:16 PM (6Q9g2)

170 when i google "goldman sec" , almost all the links now show the warning "this site may harm your computer."

Posted by: ambah at April 21, 2010 12:19 PM (tPKi8)

171 lacey - he didn't have sex with her, he didn't assault her, there is no evidence he was even alone with her. The problem is what the media has made you perceive it to be.

Posted by: Jean at April 21, 2010 12:21 PM (6Njk9)

172

Meh, to hell with Ben (Rothl) and to hell with the skank -- sound like they both deserve each other.  Frak them both (figuratively).

I really don't think a woman should be allowed to think they can get falling down drunk, act like a dirty whore, make come ons to men and then think that somehow have absolutely no consequences from that (and definitely not cry "victim"). 

By the same token I don't think men should get a free pass to get drunk and act like filthy pigs either -- double ditto if they think their "star" status excludes them from consequences.

No sympathy for stupid -- either side.

Posted by: unknown jane at April 21, 2010 12:28 PM (5/yRG)

173 Alliteration aside, it's an interesting internet intellectual inquiry, yes?

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 21, 2010 01:58 PM (VY5KX)

--Actually, that's assonance (vowel repetition), not alliteration (consonant repetition)

Posted by: Diction Police at April 21, 2010 12:44 PM (Mmw0q)

174 1:45pm Pacific I googled Goldman sachs sec obama and got Barackobama.com I may have clicked it a few times

Posted by: karenm at April 21, 2010 12:46 PM (2y90e)

175

There does seem to be some hypocrisy/double standard/inconsistency in how thes NFL treats certain players as opposed to others.

But, Ben, nothing for nothing, but it also seems like you're spending way, way too much time and energy defending someone who (1) did something that violated NFL policy - regardless of whoever else in the NFL may have done whatever they did whenver, (2) has been involved in similar situations before, (3) ought to know better due to his privileged position as an NFL QB (you live the good life, fine, but if you screw up like this you really shouldn't expect a lot of sympathy or much of a long leash), and (4) appears to be a dirtball at best from all accounts.

I'm all for equal treatment, but this guy does not seem to me to be someone who merits much carrying the flag for. 

Posted by: RM at April 21, 2010 12:53 PM (1kwr2)

176

Ah, yes it's the media that's given me the perception that he's a scumbag. Poor Ben is the victim of overzealous media hacks.

They drive all his poor choices in life. From crashing his motorcycle without wearing a helmet to finding slut pupppies that throw down the rape card on cue.

Poor, poor Ben. He just can't catch himself a break.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 21, 2010 12:59 PM (pLTLS)

177 How about for Peyton Manning -- he is a vindictive dirtball, but the media loves him. Kinda Obama like: http://tinyurl.com/y8azo57

Posted by: Jean at April 21, 2010 01:02 PM (6Njk9)

178 I never use google...I yahoo. But I did "google" what you did and surprise, no linky love!! Wow!!

Posted by: DefendUSA at April 21, 2010 01:03 PM (yIwYC)

179 I'm confused, doesn't clicking on an ad link make money for the site the ad is on?

Posted by: sig at April 21, 2010 01:04 PM (2i+Vz)

180 #138

Jean, Oh! Then he did get hosed.  Are the Joos involved in this shit?

Posted by: Kemp at April 21, 2010 01:06 PM (2+9Yx)

181 28 iam7545,

I think that's the point of my story. Rush's audience (whoever that might include) clicked on the link so frequently in a 3 minute period that the ad budget was entirely depleted for today.

Whether only one click per person counted, or whether multiple clicks did, the audience had the cumulative effect of, umm, moving the ad out of rotation, as it were


Jack - got that - I bet they took it down once it was all over the intertubes, radio and FOX

Posted by: iam7545 at April 21, 2010 01:27 PM (/nm9d)

182 Kemp - just read the actual report.  It just an example of the same shit we see everyday in political and financial reporting.  The media goes for the hype, the scandalous allegations, the salacious rumors, the big numbers, etc. then walks back slowly once the data is available. 

It fit their narrative of events and facts be damned that's the story America was going to get.  If it had been about a conservative politician, your and everyone on this site would have been skeptical and waited 48hrs before commenting.

In this case, no evidence to support an indictment. A DA could get a ham sandwich indicted -- and but he couldn't do it.  The media created a firestorm based on some of her drunk girlfriend's calls to TMZ and a guy gets a $4M hit because he bought some rounds.

Posted by: Jean at April 21, 2010 02:50 PM (CPefM)

183 "green energy" brings up a bunch links to click on too.   How much do they pay to get on the sidebar?

Posted by: snookered at April 21, 2010 07:05 PM (jchJh)

184 we still need to work our click magic...the site is  popping up again. 

Posted by: the slob at April 21, 2010 08:31 PM (i1+rx)

185 i just keep clicking and clicking and clicking...... click like a monkey on crack my pretties....

hold down the Ctrl (control) button and just keep clicking the link.... I think a new blog game might be in the offing..... see how much Ad Money you can run up.... need a name for this new game of discovery....

Posted by: J2 at April 22, 2010 12:47 AM (DCdSz)

186 xxx

Posted by: Fish at April 23, 2010 04:50 PM (M5t+h)

187 nice

Posted by: dvd at September 23, 2010 12:56 AM (ZbsYY)

188 penis büyütücühttp://www.dokunbana.com

Posted by: penis büyütücü at December 11, 2010 03:11 PM (wVs6u)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
177kb generated in CPU 0.1988, elapsed 0.4048 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3139 seconds, 316 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.