Google Sued for Allegedly Profiting From Child Porn 510
skinfaxi writes "Filed in New York, Jeffrey Toback claims Google has made billions by allowing child porn and 'other obscene content' providers to use sponsored links." From the article: "The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial. It also accuses Google of violating federal statutes relating to child pornography and calls for the court to order that Google cease "advertising, promoting, or distributing" child pornography through its site or otherwise providing any links to such content."
Won't *somebody* think of the children??? (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA: Wow...Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz managed to fit human rights in China, child pornography, and availabilty of porn to children in one sentence. A veritable trifecta of outrage.
From the above quote, you might get the idea that Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz earn a large percentage of their income from spurious lawsuits based upon righteous indignation. A quick glance at their litigation history would seem to bear out this assumption.
Again, from TFA: Now, I'm against child porn as much as the next guy (or most of them, anyway), but this is looking a lot like a fishing expedition.
Just one more quote from TFA:
Oh, that's right....it's an election year.
Fishing expedition? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's called business as usual at a big tort firm.
Re:Fishing expedition? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fishing expedition? (Score:3, Funny)
Jaysyn
Re:Fishing expedition? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fishing expedition? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fishing expedition? (Score:2)
Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children??? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that is the problem here, isn't it?
Real Threat to Children: myRedbook (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Real Threat to Children: myRedbook (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children??? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it makes sense, doesn't it? (Score:4, Interesting)
If a kiddie movie is one packed with fart jokes and marketed to children.
Kiddie ride, kiddie menu, etc.
Therefore, kiddie porn must be porn that is marketed to children.
Who needs facts or investigation when you can just launch a lawsuit? I'm betting these guys are hoping for a quick settlement from Google just to make the allegations go away.
I'm hoping that Google fights this.
Re:Well, it makes sense, doesn't it? (Score:3, Funny)
"Got anything?"
"Nah...you?"
"Nah."
"Kiddie porn is a hot topic.."
"Yeah, and Google is everyone's favorite money maker..."
"I'm gettin' an idea...ya with me???"
"cool...."
Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children??? (Score:5, Funny)
It's actually a bit surprising that they missed terrorists.
Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children??? (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, everytime you masturbate to porn, a terrorist beheads an infidel. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Heathens?!
But in all seriousness, these guys are just your typical ambulance chasing sacks of crap who should be disbarred. In fact, I can think of a number of problems in America that would get so much better if we could disbar lawyers who file frivilous lawsuits... Either that, or just use them as anchors. Whichever is easier and/or more entertaining.
come on, you're not even trying! (Score:3, Funny)
The boiz from Brazil, if you will.
Scumbucket's contact info (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't find it in my heart to be as level-headed as parent. From CNET:
Langdon pointed to the content policy for Google's AdWords sponsored links service, which broadly prohibits "promotion of child pornography or other non-consensual material." Langdon also noted that Google offers a filtering tool called SafeSearch that aims to block offensive content in search results.
The availability of such tools could mean that the suit may not go far. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects providers and users of an "interactive computer service" from liability if it can be shown that they took good-faith measures to restrict access to obscene material. It also provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public...
I know it's not really PC, but I hope they have a special room in hell for this guy. He knows what he's doing, and he knows that we know he knows it.
Re:Scumbucket's contact info (Score:4, Insightful)
How, exactly, do you intentionally do anything by acting negligently?
Re:Big surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody's defending paedophiles ... get over it (and yourself). The guy sponsoring this is a politician.
We're not in China ... the whole "claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public" is bullshit, as is the politician behind the lawsuit. Go after the producers. Oh, wait ... that would mean admitting its a job for the police ... so much for an opportunity for wrapping himself in the flag over an apple-pe issue.
Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for th
Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, good idea. If there's one thing you can count on child pornographers to do, it's to obey the letter of the law.
So you were searching for child porn? (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-starter (Score:4, Insightful)
"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."
The difference being that China is a Communist state, while the United States is a Republic. In China, the government makes and breaks the rules at will, so when they tell Google "ban searches for 'X' or else," Google complies. In the US, legislation is required to ban something and it has to meet the "rigorous" standards of law. See below.
A Google representative said Friday that the company prohibits child pornography in its products and removes all such content whenever the company finds or is made aware of it. "We also report it to the appropriate law enforcement officials and fully cooperate with the law enforcement community to combat child pornography," spokesman Steve Langdon said in an e-mail interview.
Langdon pointed to the content policy for Google's AdWords sponsored links service, which broadly prohibits "promotion of child pornography or other non-consensual material." Langdon also noted that Google offers a filtering tool called SafeSearch that aims to block offensive content in search results.
The availability of such tools could mean that the suit may not go far. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects providers and users of an "interactive computer service" from liability if it can be shown that they took good faith to restrict access to obscene material. It also provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
So, in the end, while their cause is just and I think all of us can agree that child pornography is an abomination, the fact is that laws have been passed stating the circumstances required for a company to avoid being charged with a crime for promoting child pornography, and Google is complying. Whether you agree with how the law is worded is a separate issue. This is a lot of wasted time and effort. Hopefully this lawsuit will be struck down and the anti-child-porn people can get back to helping children who are victims of this and hunting down the assholes who make it available and do these despicable things.
Re:Non-starter (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Non-starter (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, just because a country calls itself a republic doesn't mean that it is...after all, the United States calls itself a democracy...
Re:Non-starter (Score:3, Informative)
But since I can make a guess at what you really meant; It seems to me the United States likes to call itself a democracy, while technically true it would be more accurate imo to call it a federal republic with a efficiently two-party system. Not something I'd consider a 'democracy'.
Re:Non-starter (Score:4, Insightful)
Where 60.7% voted in 2004, and 50% of those elect a president. 30% of your population picks your leader.
And it's always a two party race. Do I vote far to the right, or right of center? No sense in voting center or a little left leaning, because they don't stand a chance.
Make no mistake, the US is a plutocracy now, more than a democracy. It's about who donates to an election campaign, not just the voters now.
Re:US is a democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can be a republic and a democracy, a republic and communist, comunist and democratic and a republic, a monarchy and democratic and/or communist
Re:US is a democracy? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Non-starter (Score:2)
Re:Non-starter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Non-starter (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Non-starter (Score:3, Insightful)
They're working on that.
Unsurprisingly, money is involved (Score:5, Insightful)
The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial.
However, there is no mention of who would be getting the money. So this makes me more inclined to think that it is not "for the children" but rather "for the money".
Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved (Score:2)
Don't worry, I've got that asspect covered, too.
Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved (Score:2)
After all, once Jeffrey Toback wins (fat chance), then HE'LL be the one who ultimately profited from child pr0n, and we can sue him ...
And then someone else can sue us ...
Repeat until the lawyers have ALL the money.
Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved (Score:2)
I mean, the public and the lawyers.
The guy filing the lawsuit is a public official, so it isn't like he's personally going to get cash from the lawsuit.
Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved (Score:2)
Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved (Score:2)
Sure, it'd be an unprecedented travesty of justice for google to start censoring searches in the US. But a fat rebate-style check to all 300 million americans would sort of take the sting away
Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved (Score:2)
Another One (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really want the gov't to decide what results Google or any of the other engines can return?
insert sig here
Re:Another One (Score:5, Insightful)
Better yet, why doesn't every country get together and decide what a child is? Or how about every U.S. state?
Re:Another One (Score:2)
ANAKIN: We need a system where the politicians sit down and
discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of
all the people, and then do it.
PADMÉ: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that
people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.
ANAKIN: Then they should be made to.
Re:Another One (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Another One (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be honest here, shall we?
When the talk is about child pornography, the discussion is almost certain to focus on the sexually immature child, those age twelve and under. Including those still in infancy.
Why don't they go after the purveyors of said pornography?
They can and they do. But going after the distributer sometimes means you bag the lot.
Re:Another One (Score:5, Insightful)
If a neighbouring state has a restriction of 17 or 18, you cannot bring her into Michigan for the purposes of sex, otherwise you are transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of sex (or something like that), but if she is visiting relatives, then things are different.
To wrap it up, which is more exploitive? Having sex with someone under 18, or photographing it? I don't want to get into a big philosophical debate, but the main point that I'm trying to make, is that if you're going to sue a company that is essentially worldwide, you might want to better ensure that the rules are comparable across the board, or try to make them moreso. It's hard to prevent child pornography if it's only child pornography in one little hamlet. You can filter and control it all you want, but you'll never eliminate it.
Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
Election fodder... (Score:5, Insightful)
"My name is Jeffrey Toback, and I care about your children. Vote for me this November."
Check this one out (Score:2)
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a12/phot
Talk about a knee jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Toback said a lawsuit was his only alternative because Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., is beyond the legislature's control. Toback, a father of three children, ages 15, 13 and 9, filed the lawsuit as a private citizen with no county funds."
He didn't even investigate if there was a filter in google already.
He didn't investigate his own computer even *having* filtering software.
He didn't investigate using filtering software.
He didn't think that he might, i don't know, watch where his kids go on the web.
Go go gadget out sourced parenting.
(From: http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzgoog0505,0,2
Re:Talk about a knee jerk (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Talk about a knee jerk (Score:2)
You think they're going to know how about 3rd party filtering software?
Re:Talk about a knee jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should filtering software/websites be different?
This seems a case of... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is Google doing? (Score:3, Interesting)
I somehow doubt any company would do that since it is a sure way to get in trouble and lose lots of customers. I imagine a few ads may have slipped under the Google radar that looks for this sort of abuse, but if Google has a system in place where people can notify them of these ads and if they take immediate action to remove the ads, then I don't see them as being 'evil'.
Do it for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do it for the children! (Score:2)
Key word "if". I have no idea about the merits of this case. But we can't, as a society, concern ourselves with only that which happens within the 4 walls of our individual houses. Sometimes a wider action is needed.
Load of rubbish (Score:5, Insightful)
So Google has made more from Child Porn alone than it's actual net yearly income?
What rubbish.
Re:Load of rubbish (Score:3, Informative)
Someone needs a crash course on income vs. revenue. Google's *revenue* is in the $2.25 billion range for a single quarter of a year. If they spent $1.65 billion per quarter in expenses, then their income would be around $600 million. The plaintiff (or whatever he is) is claiming that substantial amounts of *revenue* is coming from child porn.
Source: here [macworld.com]
Sponsored Links (Score:5, Funny)
Whatever you're looking for
you can get it on eBay.
www.eBay.com
Re:Sponsored Links (Score:2)
So, what ass in marketing actually decided purchasing these types of search terms was a good idea. Wasn't the original text for ebay's ad was "Get great prices on..." which raised all hell when you looked up "african slaves." I seem to recall the verbage changing soon after.
Re:Sponsored Links (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sponsored Links (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sponsored Links (Score:3, Funny)
Who ever buys a Vasectomy from eBay though, probably needs one so they stop spreading their genes.
Let's Be More Like China (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah. Let's use China as a role model. I know they're just trying to get in a cheap shot at Google, but the implication that we should somehow control companies the same way China do
If Google (Score:2)
Can't have it both ways.
interesting to note (Score:5, Insightful)
spurious and pointless as this lawsuit may be, i find it interesting that in the same sentence he faults google for blocking search terms and not blocking search terms. no, i'm not advocating child pornography or think that it shouldn't be blocked, i'm just saying people should really pick an agenda and stick with it. oh, but wait, this is america where politicians can say three things and do a fourth.
Nice generalization.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Translation: Hey they put a line of code in that says =~ s/'democracy'//ig but they won't spend a X billion dollars to create an image filtering process that can accurately determine
Not to worry (Score:2)
Re:Not to worry (Score:4, Funny)
Convenience and politics - whoo-hoo !
I call BS (Score:2)
Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market? (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that our governments haven't shown any ability to fix anything they want to -- the unintended consequences of every piece of regulation seem to create preferential treatment for some elite group rather than actually solve any problems, protect those meant to be protected or reduce "crime" as they define it. Drug wars, porn wars, family value wars, oil wars, a War on Everything seems to just make Everything worse.
I think child porn is disgusting, but the victims in this case have never seemed to be helped by the law. Lawsuits by the government that are titled "The People v. Google" seem to never help The People, harm Google, and in the end the lawyers win and the government wins a case that helps it grow in power without having to be any more accountable to those paying the bills in the end.
I'm not a fan of regular porn, either, but I don't really see how anyone can stop something that has an obvious market (including child porn or the odd varieties of porn). As a believer in the Bible, I truly believe that the best way to fix society is one relationship at a time. I've helped a few friends overcome their porn issues as best as I can, by offering my time and love and helping them become accountable to someone (voluntarily). I don't think we can eradicate porn of any kind through the law, and I also believe in people's inherent right to view porn in the privacy of their homes. Is the criminal the person looking at porn, the person making it, or the person who connects the two together? I would have to say that the person who is violated would be the kid, and the perp would be the person making it. Wouldn't it be wiser to go after the real criminal?
Just because there is a black market for something doesn't mean that the person who consumes the black market product is the problem. You can't fix the drug problem by jailing non-violent drug users. You can't fix the problem by jailing non-violent drug dealers. You can only create a fair justice system by prosecuting and jailing people who committed real acts of violence regardless of the reason -- shoot someone (drug war, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. Run someone over with your car (drunk, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. The base reasoning that "it was over drugs" or "it was because of alcohol" is not a just reason -- it is the violation of the person that was the criminal act, not the base reason behind the violation.
I think the enter War on Child Porn doesn't protect the children, but it does seem to give government more and more power over our lives. If we are to criminalize an act, it should be against the perp of the act and on behalf of a real victim. "John Doe (minor) versus Crazy McCracken (perp)" is the only lawsuit I ever want to see. The People versus lawsuits should be thrown out, and we need to return tort laws to finding a real victim and a real perp.
Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market? (Score:5, Insightful)
I like to look at porn and do so fairly regularly. I mostly download Usenet porn and have for ~10 years or so. In all that time, I have never once seen child porn. Although I don't go looking for it, I would expect at least once to have accidentally stumbled upon some. It never happened. All this makes me wonder if the hysteria around child porn is actually just people pandering to parent's fears in order to advance their own agenda. It begs the question: is all this mindless panic in proportion to the severity of the problem?
Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market? (Score:3, Insightful)
Only a complete idiot will post child p
Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market? (Score:3)
Replace your argument about "child porn" with the word "snuff films." Yes, the original perp would be jailed for murder and no additional laws would have to be created there.
But would the audience be less accountable than anybody else aiding and abbetting murder? Would they be an accomplice, just like a mafioso who orders hits against people, but never does the actual crime?
I'm not talking about people who ca
Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market? (Score:5, Insightful)
What else? If I watch videos of illegal street racing on Google Videos am I responsible for the racer's actions? No. I'm merely witnessing a crime. If I were to purchase a video of the race at a car show I'm now actively supporting the actions of the people who made the video, and potentially the people who starred in it.
The same thing goes for any "taboo" or illegal content. The idea that someone can be prosecuted for witnessing a crime is preposterous. The fact that we do prosecute these people (and according to the news and your local sex offender database, it happens a little too often for my comfort) is just horrendous. The idea is now the same as if I were to witness a murder, and be offended, I'd be fine, but if I were to watch a video tape of the murder to get my jollies I'm now a criminal. We can't throw people in jail because of what goes on inside their heads. If they act out any of these thoughts in real life, or in any other way support a crime, they're guilty, but as long as it stays in their head, they should be innocent.
Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean "unintended"?
Billions? Who's the profiteering scumbag here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's 2004 revenue was $3.19b
Quarterly revenue by late 2005 was up to about $1.5b
So, at a rough estimate, Google's total lifetime revenue as a company is in the ~$10b range.
To have made "billions" in child porn related sponsored links, even if we assume all of Google's revenue is from sponsored links, we'd be assuming 1/4th of all sponsored links Google has ever served were child porn? Assume 50% of their revenue is sponsored links and that jumps to a full 50% of all sponsored links Google has ever served are child porn.
Wow. The internet is a sick place. At least 25% of Google's entire business model is purely about child porn? They're evil!
Or, alternatively, the "billions" claim is completely made up by someone who saw a company with an apparently huge revenue stream and figured he could either:
a) Get rich by blowing a minor issue out of all proportion and then suing for a chunk of that revenue stream for himself.
b) Make a name for himself as the protector of all the little children, taking on the giants, and wouldn't you really like to vote for him for D.A. next year? After all, he cares about the children. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, PEOPLE!
Given I've not seen a single sponsored link for child porn via Google amongst the dozens of How To Make Money On EBay, How To Get Gold In WoW and various home business ads, I'm guessing a full quarter to a half of their business model is not built on child porn. So I'm going to go with self aggrandizing shyster as my guess.
this is dumb... (Score:3, Insightful)
While they are at it, let's sue the ISP on the other end of the server the content sits on for allowing the data to pass through it.
Let's also sue the company(ies) that made the routers too, they don't filter child porn.
Let's just make a list of all the companies that participated in the delivery of the content, from the companies that developped the components inside the servers the people that supplied the silicon, the companies that developped the teflon insulation in the cabling, the copper miners for making cable that could be used to transmit child porn...the list goes on and on for people that, by this same ruleset could be held accountable.
Fucktards, suing google is assinine. All they do is provide a service for people to search what is on the internet. They profit from EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET. You can't sue them because of what the internet contains. Send the people who create child porn to jail.
This whole issue is simply passing the buck. They realise it's hard to keep porn producers in check, so they sue sue sue big dollar Google to try and win a company that will help them fight their battle? It's very plain to me that most people that hold a political office of some kind have no fucking idea how the internet or computers really work, and insist on sensationalizing things like this that make grandma and grampa think they give a fuck, but the people who actually use the internet always see right the hell through it.
How can this guy file suit (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I'm shocked to find a double standard with our judicial system, but it looks like to me that this should be thrown out unless the guy can show proof that he was harmed, somehow.
"intentional" negligence? (Score:2)
So, there's someone at Google saying "Muahahha, by my non action, child porn will soon flood the world! MUAHAHA!"
Seriously, is it even remotely possible that this is intentional negligence?
More offtopic ranting about tagging (Score:5, Insightful)
Please mod me down.
Kleenex Sued for Allegedly Profiting From Porn (Score:5, Funny)
"Kleenex Sued for Allegedly Profiting From (Child) Porn!"
The suit accuses Kleenex® that the consumation of porn is made more handy by Kleenex®
Bla bla bla bla....
My conspiracy theory: (Score:5, Funny)
The More benign conspiracy theory: (Score:3, Interesting)
The charges that I can see being rendered against the spyware company would include: interference with contractual relationships (with the people paying for the real targeted google ads), libel
bla (Score:3, Insightful)
Just another idiot who - my personal belief - should be shot as a service to mankind.
Public distress? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I access Google all the time, even for pr0n (especially for pr0n). Since this is the case, will get $100,000 for my distress about having child porn go across my screen?
I am pretty sure Google allows automated inclusion of a link from a website, but they try and scan the MILLIONS of sites to filter out the bad ones. I doubt Google wants to ruin their business for a sick minority who enjoy watching naked children. This guy is just trying to sue so he can make a buck.
this is great (Score:4, Funny)
That seems to fit the behavior of the current administration excatly--negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress; can we get some monetary damages from them?
Several trillion dollars might cover at least cover two of their big disasters that come to mind immediately: Iraq and debt, although there are many other items we could add.
Google is a law enforcement tool (Score:3, Insightful)
well (Score:3, Funny)
i don't think that children are the audience for this.
WTF?! Are you KIDDING me? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even with SafeSearch Off (with their picture search facility) you can't find a singe image like that (not that I'm searching - mind you), but my experience with searching for literally anything - I've yet to come across something even remotely related to child-pron with this search facility, that I have to give them.
I'm old enough to remember the days of the Altavista search engine - and that one where relatively uncensored - so you'd stumble across the odd weird-off image now and then, but google? Nah! These people specialize in keeping such images off the engine.
However - that said - I also think that google strives to be the ultimate search engine, and therefor will have some issues on censoring just about anything. Even with thousands of people working for them - it would be literally impossible to control EVERYTHING streaming trough the net, so if anything slips by - it's most likely through the text-search and NOT the IMAGE search (they're pretty thourough - try it yourself...it's even work safe in SafeSearch OFF)
I'll be the first one to Blame Google for just about anything, but for them to make profits of Child Pron? Nope - not even by an unforseen loophole. These guys take such stuff VERY seriously - that I have to give them!
Just so no one is confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you're a lawyer or have some twisted interest in these things, this probably isn't the court you're thinking of. States usually have three levels of courts: trial court, court of last appeal, and an intermediate appellate court. (Some states do away with the latter.) Normally, the Supreme Court is the court of last appeal, but in New York it's backwards [nycourts.gov]. The New York Supreme Court is really the trial court, then comes the Appellate Division, then finally the New York Court of Appeals at the top of the ladder.
Just FYI.
Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nowadays there is not much difference between a Democrat and a Republican, is there?
If there's not much of a difference, why didn't you say "but I'm sure that Google neglected to "donate" to Republicans and/or Democrats."?
Making uninformed, strongly opinionated statements makes you look like a dumbass.
Congratulations, dumbass.
Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. They're two sides of the same coin. And with "coin", I mean "money".
Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA... (Score:3, Interesting)
Both democrats and republicans lie, steal, coerce, extort, and slander to further their ideals. They both think they're right all the time and rarely listen to each other. They both care deeply about the welfare of those close to them.
It's the story of human existence. Who would you rather see in power; someone who agrees with your politics and follows your religion but is an idiot, or someone who promotes things you find abhorrent
Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA... (Score:2)
To this day many are amazed that members of the federal government havn't been indicted over why some very suspcious figures won't investigated.
Re:Why can't Google just stop accepting porn ads ? (Score:5, Funny)
OK, I'll bite.
Why?
M-