Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
well it's a good god damn thing obama never punished people who didn't like him!Finally the DOJ doing their job.
The job of the DOJ is to punish success and involve the government in the operations of private entities?
Only if it's to punish the political enemies of the current regime.
Sadly, the fact that far to many people are retarded means they they will change their vote based on memes or shared fake news. Look at some of the folks here who seem like otherwise functional adults but none the less slavishly follow tRump no matter what.It is retarded to think that millions of people would change their vote based on facebook memes or google search returns. Not as retarded as the democrats blaming Russia for Precious losing the Presidency, but still retarded.
It is retarded to think that millions of people would change their vote based on facebook memes or google search returns. Not as retarded as the democrats blaming Russia for Precious losing the Presidency, but still retarded.
well it's a good god damn thing obama never punished people who didn't like him!Finally the DOJ doing their job.
The job of the DOJ is to punish success and involve the government in the operations of private entities?
Only if it's to punish the political enemies of the current regime.
deny your own actions, highlight the others.well it's a good god damn thing obama never punished people who didn't like him!Finally the DOJ doing their job.
The job of the DOJ is to punish success and involve the government in the operations of private entities?
Only if it's to punish the political enemies of the current regime.
Of course Obama did...and the people cheering now were whining then and vice versa.
well it's a good god damn thing obama never punished people who didn't like him!Finally the DOJ doing their job.
The job of the DOJ is to punish success and involve the government in the operations of private entities?
Only if it's to punish the political enemies of the current regime.
Of course Obama did...and the people cheering now were whining then and vice versa.
Yes it is. Given the alleged "billions of dollars" spent on ads, how can you argue that it was a facebook meme instead of a TV ad, particularly when nobody has yet to produce that unicorn who changed its vote based on a meme shared by its 4-legged facebook friends in their secret furries FB group.It is retarded to think that millions of people would change their vote based on facebook memes or google search returns. Not as retarded as the democrats blaming Russia for Precious losing the Presidency, but still retarded.
Is it really? Political campaigns spend literally billions of dollars on ads for TV and radio. They do so because they think those ads sway votes. Is that any different than FB memes?
Sadly, the fact that far to many people are retarded means they they will change their vote based on memes or shared fake news. Look at some of the folks here who seem like otherwise functional adults but none the less slavishly follow tRump no matter what.It is retarded to think that millions of people would change their vote based on facebook memes or google search returns. Not as retarded as the democrats blaming Russia for Precious losing the Presidency, but still retarded.
Yes it is. Given the alleged "billions of dollars" spent on ads, how can you argue that it was a facebook meme instead of a TV ad, particularly when nobody has yet to produce that unicorn who changed its vote based on a meme shared by its 4-legged facebook friends in their secret furries FB group.It is retarded to think that millions of people would change their vote based on facebook memes or google search returns. Not as retarded as the democrats blaming Russia for Precious losing the Presidency, but still retarded.
Is it really? Political campaigns spend literally billions of dollars on ads for TV and radio. They do so because they think those ads sway votes. Is that any different than FB memes?
Yes it is. Given the alleged "billions of dollars" spent on ads, how can you argue that it was a facebook meme instead of a TV ad, particularly when nobody has yet to produce that unicorn who changed its vote based on a meme shared by its 4-legged facebook friends in their secret furries FB group.It is retarded to think that millions of people would change their vote based on facebook memes or google search returns. Not as retarded as the democrats blaming Russia for Precious losing the Presidency, but still retarded.
Is it really? Political campaigns spend literally billions of dollars on ads for TV and radio. They do so because they think those ads sway votes. Is that any different than FB memes?
Have you ever met anyone that admitted they changed their vote based upon a TV or radio ad?
Yes it is. Given the alleged "billions of dollars" spent on ads, how can you argue that it was a facebook meme instead of a TV ad, particularly when nobody has yet to produce that unicorn who changed its vote based on a meme shared by its 4-legged facebook friends in their secret furries FB group.It is retarded to think that millions of people would change their vote based on facebook memes or google search returns. Not as retarded as the democrats blaming Russia for Precious losing the Presidency, but still retarded.
Is it really? Political campaigns spend literally billions of dollars on ads for TV and radio. They do so because they think those ads sway votes. Is that any different than FB memes?
Have you ever met anyone that admitted they changed their vote based upon a TV or radio ad?
Trying to avoid addressing the question asked of you because the answer is inconvenient for your position are you?
Yes it is. Given the alleged "billions of dollars" spent on ads, how can you argue that it was a facebook meme instead of a TV ad, particularly when nobody has yet to produce that unicorn who changed its vote based on a meme shared by its 4-legged facebook friends in their secret furries FB group.It is retarded to think that millions of people would change their vote based on facebook memes or google search returns. Not as retarded as the democrats blaming Russia for Precious losing the Presidency, but still retarded.
Is it really? Political campaigns spend literally billions of dollars on ads for TV and radio. They do so because they think those ads sway votes. Is that any different than FB memes?
Have you ever met anyone that admitted they changed their vote based upon a TV or radio ad?
Trying to avoid addressing the question asked of you because the answer is inconvenient for your position are you?
The position I am in is that everyone claims these things never effect them, yet companies are willing to pay 5 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl and in the US more than 120 billion dollars a year is spent on ads.
Clearly, the people paying for these ads think they have an impact. There might be a reason for that.
Yes it is. Given the alleged "billions of dollars" spent on ads, how can you argue that it was a facebook meme instead of a TV ad, particularly when nobody has yet to produce that unicorn who changed its vote based on a meme shared by its 4-legged facebook friends in their secret furries FB group.Is it really? Political campaigns spend literally billions of dollars on ads for TV and radio. They do so because they think those ads sway votes. Is that any different than FB memes?
Have you ever met anyone that admitted they changed their vote based upon a TV or radio ad?
Trying to avoid addressing the question asked of you because the answer is inconvenient for your position are you?
The position I am in is that everyone claims these things never effect them, yet companies are willing to pay 5 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl and in the US more than 120 billion dollars a year is spent on ads.
Clearly, the people paying for these ads think they have an impact. There might be a reason for that.
If you are singling out specific companies, then you would need to be able to show those ads specific to those companies had the effect as opposed to generalized politicking and campaigning IMO. If not, you are cherry picking.
Yes it is. Given the alleged "billions of dollars" spent on ads, how can you argue that it was a facebook meme instead of a TV ad, particularly when nobody has yet to produce that unicorn who changed its vote based on a meme shared by its 4-legged facebook friends in their secret furries FB group.
Have you ever met anyone that admitted they changed their vote based upon a TV or radio ad?
Trying to avoid addressing the question asked of you because the answer is inconvenient for your position are you?
The position I am in is that everyone claims these things never effect them, yet companies are willing to pay 5 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl and in the US more than 120 billion dollars a year is spent on ads.
Clearly, the people paying for these ads think they have an impact. There might be a reason for that.
If you are singling out specific companies, then you would need to be able to show those ads specific to those companies had the effect as opposed to generalized politicking and campaigning IMO. If not, you are cherry picking.
I am saying that companies think that ads and digital advertising have an impact on consumers. That is why we spent 120 billion dollars a year on such things, that is why a company is willing to pay 5 million dollars for 30 seconds in a football game.
And yet, nobody I have ever met has said "wow, that ad really swayed me to that product". Using your standard that means that those 120 billion dollars a year are wasted...yet I tend to think that most companies are smarter than that and they know these ads are having an impact.
Have you ever met anyone that admitted they changed their vote based upon a TV or radio ad?
Trying to avoid addressing the question asked of you because the answer is inconvenient for your position are you?
The position I am in is that everyone claims these things never effect them, yet companies are willing to pay 5 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl and in the US more than 120 billion dollars a year is spent on ads.
Clearly, the people paying for these ads think they have an impact. There might be a reason for that.
If you are singling out specific companies, then you would need to be able to show those ads specific to those companies had the effect as opposed to generalized politicking and campaigning IMO. If not, you are cherry picking.
I am saying that companies think that ads and digital advertising have an impact on consumers. That is why we spent 120 billion dollars a year on such things, that is why a company is willing to pay 5 million dollars for 30 seconds in a football game.
And yet, nobody I have ever met has said "wow, that ad really swayed me to that product". Using your standard that means that those 120 billion dollars a year are wasted...yet I tend to think that most companies are smarter than that and they know these ads are having an impact.
You are still ignoring that if you call out any platform be it Facebook or MSNBC, you would need to show that ad was exclusive to Facebook or MSNBC and that ad had a direct impact. Since I have seen no such information presented, this controversy strikes me as butthurt on both sides, particularly the DNC side. The allegation has turned into almost the perfect lie at this point as far as I can tell because there is no direct particularized evidence.
Trying to avoid addressing the question asked of you because the answer is inconvenient for your position are you?
The position I am in is that everyone claims these things never effect them, yet companies are willing to pay 5 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl and in the US more than 120 billion dollars a year is spent on ads.
Clearly, the people paying for these ads think they have an impact. There might be a reason for that.
If you are singling out specific companies, then you would need to be able to show those ads specific to those companies had the effect as opposed to generalized politicking and campaigning IMO. If not, you are cherry picking.
I am saying that companies think that ads and digital advertising have an impact on consumers. That is why we spent 120 billion dollars a year on such things, that is why a company is willing to pay 5 million dollars for 30 seconds in a football game.
And yet, nobody I have ever met has said "wow, that ad really swayed me to that product". Using your standard that means that those 120 billion dollars a year are wasted...yet I tend to think that most companies are smarter than that and they know these ads are having an impact.
You are still ignoring that if you call out any platform be it Facebook or MSNBC, you would need to show that ad was exclusive to Facebook or MSNBC and that ad had a direct impact. Since I have seen no such information presented, this controversy strikes me as butthurt on both sides, particularly the DNC side. The allegation has turned into almost the perfect lie at this point as far as I can tell because there is no direct particularized evidence.
I agree that calling out a specific platform is silly and reeks of partisanship.
But I would say also that it is no less silly than claiming that since nobody ever said "I changed my vote because of ...." that means that thing did not have an impact.
Justice Department to Open Broad, New Antitrust Review of Big Tech Companies
here we go. like i've said; from my experiences at microsoft, there comes a time it just doesn't matter if you're simply taking advantage of your own growth, the gov will come on in and do some leveling THEY feel needs to be done.
when you use that "power" to shove your will on others, the gov can and will get in the way. what i see today is a hell of a lot more of shoving of wills so i expect the gov to come down just as hard as they did on MS. at a bare minimum the living in the gray area will end and each platform must take a choice, not take the best of all.
i'd love to see an open competition for this but that right now isn't even possible. when google can throw votes to a presidential candidates way, (‘Google has power to control elections, can shift millions of votes to Clinton’ – Robert Epstein) then you're abusing that power and it will be stopped.
doesn't matter how you may personally feel, big tech is about to get big brother'd and they brought it upon themselves in a very human nature fashion.
It's not about Memes on Facebook. It is about the selective control of the flow of information by a very few LARGE companies. It would be like AT&T (before the break up) breaking in on your phone conversation and telling you not to say something, or completely just cutting off your conversation. Is that OK?
just because you don't understand his answer, doesn't make it incorrect.Yes it is. Given the alleged "billions of dollars" spent on ads, how can you argue that it was a facebook meme instead of a TV ad, particularly when nobody has yet to produce that unicorn who changed its vote based on a meme shared by its 4-legged facebook friends in their secret furries FB group.It is retarded to think that millions of people would change their vote based on facebook memes or google search returns. Not as retarded as the democrats blaming Russia for Precious losing the Presidency, but still retarded.
Is it really? Political campaigns spend literally billions of dollars on ads for TV and radio. They do so because they think those ads sway votes. Is that any different than FB memes?
Have you ever met anyone that admitted they changed their vote based upon a TV or radio ad?
Trying to avoid addressing the question asked of you because the answer is inconvenient for your position are you?
