Corporations

Super Bowl Ads Illustrate Importance of Free Speech Rights for All, Even Corporations

When government regulates and restricts speech, everybody eventually loses.

|

84 Lumber

Did you see the Super Bowl ad about Mexican avocados? The Coke commercial? Budweiser's mini-bio of its immigrant founder? Was corporate America trolling Donald Trump with ads that celebrated free trade, diversity, and immigration? Or were they just selling products to people perhaps more sensitive to gleaning political messages than they have been before? Do you want the government to decide that?

Breitbart commenters, among other Trump loyalists, have been concerned about political ads at the Super Bowl since last week, when the Budweiser ad hit the news cycle. Fox initially rejected one ad from a lumber company that featured a long journey to a border wall, and a big beautiful door, although the beginning of the ad, from Lumber 84, did air—the whole thing was put online. Nevertheless, there was no paucity of ads from which viewers gleaned political messages. And that's a good thing—despite the heated rhetoric against Citizens United and corporate speech rights during the 2016 election, the Super Bowl ads and the discussions they're inevitably launching are an illustration of why protecting free speech rights from government regulation is important, even for corporations. Free expression is a crucial component of a free society and a healthy democracy, and sustains a marketplace of ideas. The notion that government interference can have anything but a deleterious effect is ridiculous—it shouldn't have to take a character like Trump to head the government for people to realize that; there have been enough examples of what supposedly well-intended regulations have done.

Tonight's ads reflected the American population—companies, unlike governments, have to offer people something they want or they won't get their money, so they are far better at delivering to and so reflecting the many moods of the American people. The inevitable complaints, even the boycotts, are part of that too, and it's all part of a process of self-regulating speech, where ideas, ideally, rise and fall on their merits, where individuals get to argue about the meaning of things instead of having government decide. Only through open discussions, unfettered by the coercions of a government inevitably interested in protecting itself and its narrow interests, can better ideas develop and thrive.

Both Trump and his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, who courageously stood up against Citizens United, which ruled in favor of free speech that was critical of her, have abysmal records on free speech. But perhaps 2017 will make more free speech fans out of people sometimes too quick to take their leaders' words on it.

NEXT: Make Your Commute Great Again! Subscribe to the Reason Podcast!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Breitbart commenters, among other Trump loyalists, have been concerned about political ads at the Super Bowl since last week

    There it is again. Only Trump loyalists have a problem with those ads.

    1. He never said only, and he provided the Breitbart link (I tried reading the comments, but man…).
      I’d say it’s a fair comment.

      1. Breitbart commenters, among other Trump loyalists

        That statement includes no one but Trump supporters. I realize he didn’t use the word “only”, but what other conclusion can be drawn from that?

        1. You should sue.

        2. It’s hard for some to remove themselves from the political. So much so in fact that they find it inconceivable that many of us veiw sporting events or most things on television for that matter, as the frivolous entertainment it is.

          It’s a form of escapism and the intrusion into the small handful of hours some of get a week to just forget about the big ugly world breeds a hell of a lot of resentment.

          The stance the advertiser or program takes on the issue is beside the point. Stop lecturing me and just try to sell me some potato chips or laundry detergent for fuck’s sake.

        3. “That statement includes no one but Trump supporters. I realize he didn’t use the word “only”, but what other conclusion can be drawn from that?”

          Is there other than Trump supporters who griped? Please let us know.

          1. *raises hand*

            Yeah, I’m bitching. Probably more to do with the outcome of the game than any real offense. I usually just roll my eyes and move on when I see these things.

            Goddamn Pats…

          2. I, for one, thought those ads sucked, and I’m no Trump supporter. I can’t be the only one.

            1. “I can’t be the only one.”

              I assumed that was implied with my comment. But I guess I do leave some things open to interpretation with my lazy speech patterns.

    2. TL:DW the ad or the game.

      1. I wasn’t the only one. Good to know.

  2. Doesn’t seem like a very bright move by 84, considering their customer base and the ridiculously crowded business they’re in.

    1. Their customer base? You mean all of the construction companies that rely on cheap Mexican labor?

      1. That girl was barely ten! Are they using orphan labor now?
        Of course, The Wall was also built with lumber – I guess they’ll sell weapons to both sides in Culture War.
        In retrospect, that might be most Libertarian commercial since Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose DVD set.

  3. I can’t wait for the left to start wailing about their message being stolen and corrupted by corporate America.

  4. And goddam Atlanta – finish the game off.

    1. Winners never quit and quiters never win.

      1. Quit while you’re ahead.

    2. “And goddam Atlanta – finish the game off.”

      Agreed.
      ATL should have gotten half the trophy for handing the game to NE neatly wrapped with a ribbon.
      That was not pro ball.

      1. I really didn’t have much stake in either team, just was hoping for a good game so the small Super Bowl get-together we held would keep people interested. As it was, by the end of the third quarter, a few friends figured the game was essentially over, and took off (much to their later regret). The guy sitting next to me on the couch was pretty much thinking the same way — though he, as an Oakland Raiders fan, was still a bit pissed about the Tuck Rule playoff game years ago, so was enjoying seeing the Falcons taking it to Tom Brady.

        However, seeing the way Brady pulled off that amazing comeback had all of us rooting for him that last quarter. It was just hard not to cheer seeing someone essentially willing his team to win. And especially after the first three quarters, when so many Pats receivers were dropping easy passes that we started to wonder if they were on the take, the way the players rallied around him in the final minutes and were making incredible plays all around the field, was really something to watch.

        It was nice overall not to have an overall rooting interest, so I could just enjoy what ended up being a helluva Super Bowl, maybe the best one ever. And loved seeing the two incredible catches, one by the Falcons receiver as he was diving out of bounds, and the other by the Pats guy in the monkey pile, catching the pass as it bounced off the defender’s knee, right before it hit the ground — wow.

  5. When government regulates and restricts speech, everybody eventually loses.

    When Facebook and Twitter do it, on the other hand, that’s fine because it was probably useless yokel speech anyway.

    1. They can’t coerce anyone so it’s materially different.

      1. What Ed said; are you gonna gripe that NSA data collection is like Goggle?
        Oh, wait. I think you already have!

      2. The effect is the same, and the lack of recourse is the same.

        1. no. it’s not. Facebook and Google are private corporations that can’t coerce you to use their services. *No private entity can force you to use their services.

          *except insurance companies. Thanks Justice penaltax roberts.

          1. You don’t actually have to use most of the government’s “services”; you just have to pay for them, whether you use them or not.

      3. Ed, what do you not understand about a government that is, for the people, by the people and of the people. If you did you wouldn’t make such stupid comments.

        1. Sarc?
          Stupidity?

          1. Who, me? Last I checked, Facebook and Twitter are corporate citizens. If the people and in this case I mean “people” don’t uphold our ideals, then who will?

  6. Can of Bisque?

  7. Super Bowl Ads Demonstrate Importance of Bludgeoning Public Over Head With Social Commentary and Issues That Have Nothing to do With Products Advertised.

    FTFY

    1. No, no, it’s totally great that big businesses are telling us what to think.

    2. Soon there will be no corner of public life that is free from political pandering. Which benefits the statists, regardless of which end of the spectrum has the upper hand.

      The statists’ #1 goal was to destroy civil society and everything that was orthogonal to the state, and they accomplish it more and more each day. Even opposition to the state helps the state by engorging its importance.

      1. THE STATE: “But enough about me, what do *you* think about me?”

        1. L’etat, c’est troll.

          1. The national motto of Kekistan!

    3. “That Have Nothing to do With Products Advertised.”

      Cheap labor?

    4. Did they have any gay guys kissing this year? Only reason I’d ever watch the Super Bowl.

      1. Two players got their helmets stuck together. We assume kissing was involved.

      2. Sadly, I only saw a Gay Pride flag on a porch in commercial number one.

        Let’s hope they make up for it next year with some live footage of cock-fingering.

      3. The only people that still get all worked up about two guys kissing are people that get all worked up about two guys kissing.

        1. They need to spice it up – have two straight guys kissing!

          1. Didn’t you hear, PZ? That’s “problematic”!

          2. Isn’t that appropriating?

      4. It’s football. How much more homoeroticism do you need?

      5. One of ads for Hallmark had a couple of dudes getting married.

        Blink and you missed it, though.

    5. Is this a left wing phenomenon? The right could have more blue lives matter, keep the jobs here stuff. I don’t recall any though.

  8. “the Super Bowl ads and the discussions they’re inevitably launching are an illustration of why protecting free speech rights from government regulation is important, even for corporations.”

    Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party, in a lawsuit seemingly cheered on by Reason, is seeking to deprive the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) of corporate contributions in punishment for CPD partisanship.

    Can someone explain this to me? Is it OK when “we” do it?

    1. Reason’s brand of libertarianism: “The ends justify the means.”

      1. “And the left basically choses the ends for us. Can I have a job at slate now?”

  9. Hmmmmm two articles righ at the end of the match. I sense butthurt by the reason staff and they are trying to dilute the win by the Brady mammal cuz he is a supporter of the mammal with the hair

    1. To a lizard, all mammals have too much hair.

      1. Dolphins?

        1. You only see them when they’re fully shaved.

          1. They’re very meticulous about their grooming. That’s how Marine biologists figured out that dolphins are gay.

            1. That plus they have something called a blow hole.

              1. I thought that was “the glory hole”!

                No wonder they kicked me out of Sea World.

            2. So long and thanks for all the dick.

          2. You mean strippers?

            1. Fully shaved strippers? You’ve never been to Italy.

              1. Are you saying that furries just have a thing for Italians?

    2. Husbands of immigrant supermodels unite.

    3. But all mammals have “the hair”, it is one of the distinguishing features of mammals.

  10. You might want to have a quick discussion with your colleague Shikha Dalmia on the importance of free speech. Most of the people aroynd here are cool with it.

    1. Just for the record, I think this is what B.P. is referring to:

      “Violence is never cool so Berkley rioters deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But Trump threatens to start Muslim registries, suspend refugee program, possibly invade Mexico, restore torture, end criminal justice reform, truncate travel rights, and shrink press freedoms. And what do conservative groups in Berkley do? Invite Milo because their free speech rights are the most pressing issue in Trump’s America. Congratulations, kids, you have now become more self-indulgent than your leftist peers.”

      —-Shikha Dalmia

      https://twitter.com/shikhadalmia

      There’s so much wrong with that, but it begins and ends with the denigration of the importance of free speech.

      1. Also,

        “Only Berkley admin acted well in the Milo saga. Not the lefty thugs and not the @CRNC Repubs who invited the jerk:”

        1. I don’t think Dalmia is an Asperger case. But if she doesn’t take everything Trump says literally, she certainly seems to take everything Trump says seriously. I don’t think she understands bravado.

          In addition to that, she’s apparently willing to throw anything under the bus to oppose Trump–including free speech.

          You read those tweets of hers, and it’s hard to believe that she subscribes to the same magazine that started “Everybody Draw Mohamed Day”.

          1. I thought it was Seattle Weekly who started it.
            Of course, the end result was not encouraging.

            1. I was thinking in reference to Pamela Geller’s contest–Reason beat Geller out by years.

              Anyway, point was that it’s hard to believe that those tweets were written by someone who subscribes to the same “Free Minds” philosophy that hosted “Everybody Draw Mohamed Day”.

              Happy?

      2. “…And what do conservative groups in Berkley do? Invite Milo because their free speech rights are the most pressing issue in Trump’s America….”

        Shikha, I’ve yet to beat on you here, but now let me begin:
        IF that is an accurate quote, you are beneath contempt.
        Is that clear? Absent you retracting that statement, there is nothing you can say which would make your comments worth reading.
        Retract, or fuck off.

  11. Lady Gaga not pulling a Streep on Trump? I wish she would have.

    1. Lady Gaga – Master Persuader

      “You expected her to be political, right? You were primed. The commercials were political. The smell of Trump is in the air. She seems like the type to get too political.

      “What’s she gonna do?

      “She sings the best version of America the Beautiful you are likely to hear, while drones formed an American flag behind her. At the Superbowl.

      “And in so doing, she paced the Republicans who were watching. She already owned the liberals. Two minutes in, and it was perfect persuasion. No politics, just agreeing with all of us. And she did it visually, aurally, and emotionally.”

      1. She would’ve been booed off the stage. Those weren’t Golden Globe attendees.

      2. Except for the drones, which was a cool if ostentatious bit of tech, the entire routine was just supremely silly.

      3. She’s a smart girl.

        1. She’s still in her prime, she has money to make. She’s not Madonna yet.

        2. A real classy broad.

    2. Not in Texas, dude.

  12. Tonight’s ads reflected the American population?companies, unlike governments, have to offer people something they want or they won’t get their money, so they are far better at delivering to and so reflecting the many moods of the American people.

    Did they reflect the population, though? Was there “limit immigration” ad, “guns are awesome” ad or “lower the damn taxes” ad? (I didn’t watch, because no cable)
    An oil company did have an “Oil is awesome” ad, I guess – thanks to whoever linked that in the comments.

    OT: This was the first year that Canadian viewers could see US Superbowl ads, if they had a Fox channel as part of their subscription. Until now, Canadian ads were cut into the broadcast instead.

    1. “…Did they reflect the population, though? Was there “limit immigration” ad, “guns are awesome” ad or “lower the damn taxes” ad? (I didn’t watch, because no cable)…”

      They are extremely expensive ads. AFAIK, there are none more expensive. So they get top-level examination by the companies involved; the CEO vetted the SB ads when a client of mine bought a couple of 30 second spots.
      In the case of Audi, it probably didn’t hurt, but there’s a good chance it didn’t help, either. The people who wrote and vetted the ads were the same people who presumed the hag WOULD win, cause why not?
      Story:
      Wife and self had dinner at an expensive and VERY good SF restaurant; we sit at a counter or bar if available as we did in this case. Sitting next to me is a much younger guy in a ball cap who mentions he and wife have driven down from ‘way north CA for their anniversary and just happened into the place. Chatting; he’s an off-road bike racer, does well, but it’s a butt-buster. Many other subjects, smiles all around; they are going to the motocross in Oakland this weekend.
      As they were leaving, a guy away from me (near the wife) commented ‘I hope you’re taking her to Neiman Marcus in exchange for the bike races’. The wife said “I LIKE the bike races”.
      I didn’t ask, but I’d bet I was chatting with Trump voters and I’d guess the guy on the far side got a bit of a surprise.
      They paid in large bill cash and waved off any change back.

  13. “After Audi released its new Super Bowl ad featuring a bunch of equal pay mumbo jumbo, the luxury car company had to eat its words…

    …I’m not going to parse how psychologically damaging this advertisement is to all the young girls who will be watching this ad and consequently subjected to the deceitful victimhood rhetoric that “you matter less because of your chromosomes.” Instead, let’s focus on what happened after the luxury car company responded to a question on Twitter. All of the “equal pay” nonsense their ad espouses totally falls apart when faced with the realities of economics.

    Here’s the question and response.

    Prepper Frog @TueborFrog
    @Audi You pay your female employees less than males? You know that’s against the law, right?

    @Audi
    @TueborFrog When we account for all the various factors that go into pay, women at Audi are on par with their male counterparts.

    So, it seems that Audi admits their female employees’ paychecks are not as fat as those of their male employees. Yet this doesn’t mean female employees aren’t being paid equally.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/…..-retracts/

  14. I think you have a poppyseed in your teeth. It’s a big one. Might want to go to the bathroom.

  15. Hey, they did the best they could, OK?

    “Obviously, the [Berkeley] campus police are still struggling to get it right, and there’s a case to be made that a more aggressive posture was in order Wednesday night. (The city of Berkeley’s separate police force seems to have been particularly passive against the anarchists who also attacked in their jurisdiction, but that’s not the university’s fault.) On the other hand, those who decry the lack of arrests should acknowledge that, for all the chaos, only six people reported minor injuries on Wednesday night. With the safety of students and Yiannopoulos himself as their prime directive, the police commanders on scene decided “we’ll trade a few broken windows for that,” as university spokesman Dan Mogulof told me. Mogulof added that campus police are reviewing video of the events and plan to seek arrest warrants for any rioters they can identify. Contrary to Internet myth, there was no “stand down” order to the police from Cal’s administration.”

    1. I thought the Berkeley cops showed a lot of restraint in not beating or arresting the college Republicans who caused all that disturbance (according to Radley Balko and Shikha Dalmia).

      1. A few broken ribs and a concussion are a small price to pay to let the people have their voice heard.

        1. They actually had a woman who claimed to represent By Any Means Necessary, the group behind the violence, interviewed on local TV news here. She said (paraphrasing from memory) that “a few windows broken here or there are meaningless next to the evil words being put out there by white supremacists. Sometimes it’s important to have violence and destruction so people will know the truth”.

          So, essentially, the rioting and vandalism were a feature, not a bug. And, from what we can tell locally, the instigators were left alone by the Berkeley PD, well, because, the rioters were the good guys.

          1. But, but…”campus police are reviewing video of the events and plan to seek arrest warrants for any rioters they can identify.”

            You hear that, black block rioters? If you show up again they’ll recognize you…hmm, maybe they should have grabbed you when they had the chance…

          2. I don’t have any google-fu, but the local CBS station’s reporter is at the event and literally talks about how Black Bloc just showed up and started the violence. It’s clear there’s a professional element to these “protests.” And there’s video elsewhere where a protester goes up to a livestream of the riots and is like “The people committing violence aren’t students and aren’t part of the protests! I don’t agree with it!” But, why are you marching behind them through Berkeley and watching them smash up banks and Starbucks and spray paint “Kill Trump”?

    2. Contrary to Internet myth, there was no “stand down” order to the police from Cal’s administration.”

      Curiously the Washington Compost doesn’t even cite a source for that claim. Well, it’s not like they’ve ever lied before.

      1. The article does say that the campus cops “were following practices recommended by an internal review panel after allegedly excessive police force against demonstrators on Berkeley’s campus in November 2011.”

        I followed the link, and the recommendations came with this caveat:

        “although we recognize the troubling possibility that protests may involve some individuals bent on
        creating mischief, destroying property, or worse, handling such protesters has not been a primary focus of this
        Report. It has been our experience that the vast majority of protests are peaceful…Most of our
        recommendations for responding to protests are therefore premised on the assumption that protesters will be
        acting in good faith and in a peaceful manner, even if violating laws or regulations to emphasize their message.
        But we cannot ignore the possibility that some individuals may have less honorable intentions, and may seize
        on protests as an opportunity merely to cause disruption or damage. We think our campuses should attempt
        to follow our recommendations regardless of the apparent motivation of the protesters, but to the extent
        ill-intentioned individuals are among the protesters, we recognize that it may complicate the efforts of our
        Administrations and police departments to successfully respond, and may render some of the
        Recommendations in our Report infeasible or ineffective.”

        1. Oh, that was the stupid Occupy Cal protests where the protestors tried to trap police inside a circle of students to keep them from taking away arrestees. The ones that Reason ran heavily edited video of to make it look like the cops were aggressors, and never ran a correction when the full video came out and made it clear that the protestors were at fault.

    3. Berkeley’s leadership may never have Donald Trump’s support, or he theirs. But they certainly don’t deserve his vilification for what happened Wednesday night, especially since they were trying, successfully or not, to uphold the rights of people with whom they openly disagree. In that respect, Berkeley’s administrators set an example he would do well to emulate.

      LOL. Let’s see the ComPost’s reaction if a right-wing mob attacks a Democrat Party event with a speech from Rachel Maddow at a national park, and the Trump-controlled Park Police stand back and make no arrests.

      1. The deserve vilification, they’ve been running a commie camp with degrees in activism.

      2. LOL. Let’s see the ComPost’s reaction if a right-wing mob attacks a Democrat Party event with a speech from Rachel Maddow at a national park, and the Trump-controlled Park Police stand back and make no arrests.

        Particularly since the talking points that were pushed on every talking head show over the next two days pointedly emphasized that the violence was all due to a small group of outside agitators and should in no way reflect on the peaceful protests against all things on the racist, homophobic, sexist, islamophobic right.

        So…. if the problems were all caused by a small group of agitators…. wouldn’t it have been, you know, not only easy but prudent to just make a small number of arrests and put an end to the violence so everyone else could get back to their peaceful protests.

  16. Just for the record, I take issue with the suggestion that violence is never acceptable–on both a personal and philosophical grounds.

    I don’t believe that the government should have a monopoly on violence, and I look at things like the Boston Tea Party, the American revolution, the Federalist papers argument for the Second Amendment, the Romanian revolution, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, various slave rebellions, . . .

    Violence is a tool, and like a knife can be used for murder or to take our a burst appendix, violence can be used for evil or good purposes, too.

    This instance of violence used to shut down a speech at Berkeley was not a good purpose, but I keep seeing various people around the interwebs saying that violence is never acceptable–and I disagree. If you need to defend your rights, and you’ve run out of other options, . . .

    1. don’t believe that the government should have a monopoly on violence

      You can’t call Ken a cosmo.

    2. Maybe there are circumstances when extra-governmental violence is just, and circumstances where it isn’t.

      If only there had been people who considered these issues and articulated the philosophical issues involved…

      1. Too bad they ruined their credibility by also saying that you can’t jerk off.

        1. Because now we know it’s a great idea?

          1. It’s always ended well for me.

            Well, except for the time it went into my keyboard. That was a pain to clean up.

    3. Don’t give cover to these leftist thugs by muddying the water with exceptions that don’t even come close to applying here. Using violence to shut down speech is never acceptable.

      1. Being honest–even when it’s about people we despise–is what intellectual integrity is all about.

        Then when we talk about why we despise these people, it really means something.

      2. For me, despising them really is, ultimately, about them being anti-free speech.

  17. On topic:

    I thought that tank game ad was the most effective. Every time after it when they ran a commercial or promo where I didn’t immediately understand what the message/product was I expected everything to get crushed by a tank.

    1. +1 tank.

    2. Yay, they posted the playlist of all the ads!
      If only they used a T-34 instead of Sherman…

    1. P…. Protest culture?

      Yiannopoulos is doing a 23-campus speaking tour. There are protests against him everywhere he appears, but there have only been a few places where there has been violence directed at “shutting down” the event. Here is what happens at the campuses where there is no violence:

      Nothing.[1]

      Yiannopoulos speaks, somewhere between fifty and a couple of hundred people listen, everyone goes home, there is very little media coverage, it is all forgotten by the next day, and a disappointed Milo goes back to his sad life as an obnoxious gay internet troll[2] trying to ingratiate himself to alt-right homophobes.

      1) Bullshit. Or else nobody would be causing violence to stop him from doing nothing. What he’s doing is shattering a narrative. The narrative is so deeply ingrained in the minds of the protest culture that they react with violence when it is threatened.

      2) Milo’s life is almost certainly a million times better in every conceivable way than anyone who has ever been employed by HuffPo. And mine, for that matter. But I’m not the jealous one trying to convince myself otherwise.

      Oh well, as Robby notes, Milo is really the one to blame for the violence.

      1. Bullshit. Or else nobody would be causing violence to stop him from doing nothing.

        You’re assuming the “protestors” are behaving rationally, and furthermore that they are actually trying to advance leftism. Dollars to donuts most of the guys in that protest are just trying to get in some girl’s pants, and the ones who aren’t are just trying to up their street cred. What the effect is, they don’t give a damn about.

        Milo’s life is almost certainly a million times better in every conceivable way than anyone who has ever been employed by HuffPo.

        Pretty strong statement. At the very least, Milo is pretty much stuck for the rest of his life in the role of right-wing troll. He’s never going to be able to get any other job.

        1. It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future (as I think Yogi Berra said), but at least for the present Milo seems to have the kind of job he enjoys.

          By the time the public gets bored with him, hopefully he has a little money to invest in his next brilliant career idea.

        2. Dollars to donuts most of the guys in that protest are just trying to get in some girl’s pants, and the ones who aren’t are just trying to up their street cred.

          Most of the black bloc is doing it for dollar$

          1. Next time Milo should speak at a donut shop near campus. Let’s see if the cops are able to remain passive when the shop is attacked.

            1. I hear he likes the chocolate long johns.

            2. There’s no way an artisinal donut shop would let Milo speak there.

  18. Re: the Super bowl

    I haven’t seen a lead blown that badly since Hillary’s 2016 Presidential campaign

    1. Texas Rangers, Game 6 of the World Series

      1. Since you brought up the world series, I say that the 2016 W.S. was exponentially,more entertaining than tonight’s Superbowl.

  19. T-Mobile FTW.

  20. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  21. We don’t have to worry about free speech rights of giant corporations (campaign finance law and other exceptions notwithstanding). Their voice is guaranteed. It’s unpopular speech that needs protection, and it’s under threat by Trump and his critics. It’s a double whammy.

  22. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  23. True.

    And yet what will the result be if you have seemingly all the corporations in the world pushing for progressivism? (Besides despite protests to the contrary, they like the government taking care of their workers so they don’t have to. And getting taken care of themselves) To go along with 95% of the media? You only have one voice being heard.

  24. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to website

    =============================== http://www.cash-review.com

  25. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to website

    =============================== http://www.cash-review.com

  26. Jesse, Rhywun, Tonio, Kristen, Eddie:

    Edelman is so hot. Excellent catcher.

  27. How the fuck can you think “avocados from Mexico” is a dig at Trump? Holy shit, get treated for your mental illness.

  28. Do you think anyone that opposes Citizens United actually noticed that the adds had a political tilt to them. I find most people that partisan just think their point of view is natural and normal, and not at all political. It’s the other guys view points that are political.

  29. “The notion that government interference can have anything but a deleterious effect is ridiculous…”

    I know, right? The Free Market Liberation Forces easily defeated the Nazis and ended the Cold War.

  30. How about Audi’s gender pay gap nonsense?

  31. I see what you mean… Jesse `s postlng is neat… on monday I bought a top of the range Jaguar E-type after I been earnin $7477 this-last/4 weeks and-even more than, 10-k last-munth . no-doubt about it, this really is the most comfortable job Ive had . I started this seven months/ago and right away was making more than $73 per-hr . go right here…
    ………….. http://www.cash-review.com

  32. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.moneytime10.com

  33. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.cash-review.com

  34. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do>>

    ======== http://www.centerpay70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.