I read an article where Ben Shapiro lost pod cast sponsors because of protests over a comment that he would not have aborted Hitler prior to birth.
I believe he was at an anti abortion rally. He is outspoken in his anti abortion views. The comment is completely understandable, considering it was probably simply an attempt to show how strongly the view is held; considering that he is Jewish and the history involved.
While I disagree with his stand on abortion he is articulate enough that I understand his reasoning to be sound, respect his right to his opinion and applaud his ability to participate in civil debate on the issue.
Why do many on the left fear free speech so much they have to demand people be muzzled who don't share their views? Why throw a tantrum on social media every time something is said they disagree with?
Most conservatives I know won't back any attempt at boycott over difference of opinion and don't equate product sales with social issues, just because someone loosely affiliated holds a particular view. I'd like to understand why that is the go to stance of many on the left.
Yes, l to L, the conservatives YOU know. The boycott is a valid weapon in the arsenal to get the attention of miscreants, hit them in the pocketbook. If the issue is not worthy, than people are free not to change their buying habits. So, what is the problem? People express displeasure with their dollars, is that not the American way? Many years ago in Colorado such a boycott was applied to Adolph Coors company attacking its discriminatory practices and hiring policies. And when I read the details and determined that the complaint was valid, I joined in and purchased any all other beer brand except Coors, until the cleaned up their act.
Rosa Parks and Economic boycott brought down the Montgomery Bus company and segregation policy, it certain was not going to change due to to any moral argument or persuasion
It is how the little guy can bring the bully to heel. A most valuable tool in the tool box.
So, I am all for boycott if it proves necessary.
Do you think a guy saying he is so anti abortion as to even refuse to abort a man who might (remember the fetus only has the potential to grow in that direction of hate) eventually slaughter tens of millions of people who practice the same faith he does is worthy of such action?
As I stated. I disagree with Shapiro on abortion but I don't find anything remotely offensive in his statement, I wouldn't abort Hitler while in the womb either. I would think the better course would be, if you knew the possible outcome beforehand, to attempt to change it.
Hey there Cred, It looks to me like you and Live to Learn are talking about two different things.
You have to be, because I agree with both comments, and that wouldn't work if you were both talking about the same thing.
I read her comment as addressing boycotts as an action taken because you don't like something someone said, not as an action against a clear wrong.
Now take a breath, you know how I feel about extremes, so when I say disliking something someone said, I am not talking about extremes such as inflammatory racial or discriminatory slurs. So don't stretch my "don't like what someone said" to those extremes.
The OP was about the impact of the social media mob, and its cries for boycott simply because they disked what was said, not because it was obviously wrong.
That is not a case of the "little guy" bringing a bully to heel, it is about a particular strain of intolerance and a mob's power to do damage because of it.
GA, the two entities that backed out of sponsorship were small in the scheme of things. Those animal rights activist folks have been doing this stuff for some time and there a lot more of them.
I don't think that it will bring the house down. I am more concerned about the general Conservative response to adverse speech with closing down the newspaper, shooting the messenger in response. Compared to this, the tactics of the Left are mild.
Sometimes one guy's extreme is another's "middle of the road" and the reverse is true
If this boneheaded imbecile actually said that, not only should ALL of his sponsors dump him but he should be immediately deported to a country which tolerates this kind of insane crazy talk: Maybe he and Donald could meet up and get together to share dark evil conversation on some deserted isle in the middle of nowhere, a place where they can't harm anyone else but themselves: Some white nationalists are fine people according to Donald so they probably have a lot in common:
Considering thousands of Americans lost their lives in WW2 to save and protect the planet from this kind of pure evil named Hitler, let him find another place to spew his retardation:
Boneheaded. Your words, not mine. That term definitely applies to the sentiments you expressed here.
Retardation. Your words, not mine. I'm glad hub pages gives you a place to express views which people such as yourself, displaying limited courtesy, can make such an assessment of a view similar to the one you have shared.
Sorry, but any imbecile who actually said Hitler should not have been aborted, a medical procedure which would have SAVED the Lives of millions of Jews and thousands of American Heroes in WW2 who halted his INSANITY is actually beyond Retarded:
Still wondering WHY HubPages allows this type of HATE Filled alt right discussion on their site:
If you could be a little more civil then the Hate filled part would be removed. And if not advocating for aborting a baby because of what it might end up doing as a grown up is alt right, I guess I'm guilty.
The weirdo hate monger you're referring to was a breitbart flunky which indicates 'alt right' and don't worry Live to Learn, prior to your announcement of being an 'alt righter' we could already discern it from you comments and by the way, it's painfully obvious you have no friends and or relatives who served bravely in WW2 to stomp on Hitler and his evil fascists:
And today, we have an idiot in the oval office who refers to these same kind of white nationalists which are reminiscent of Nazi Germany, as "Fine People": INSANITY in the year 2019:
Ok. I had family in the war. They weren't hate mongers who believed babies should be exterminated. Your views would have fit nicely in the Nazi party. They were fans of extermination also.
And, the brown shirt style of Antifa fits more into the Nazi narrative than anything done by extremists who label themselves Nazis. So, I think for all intents and purposes that name fits views such as yours better than anyone
Just FYI Live to Learn, Bozo Trump's white nationalist pals who marched on Charlottesville and who chanted HATE about Jews are the neo-Nazis while Antifa are the ANTI-Nazis, the equivalent of the allied forces in WW2:
I understand Bozo Trump always like to commit a crime or atrcity and then claim one of his critics was the perpetrator, maybe that retardation works with his last remaining followers but not with me:
I get it. You hate Trump and anyone who doesn't hate, you hate.
That's a lot of hate.
I can't even count the valid reasons WHY the overwhelming majority of Americans HATE or can't stomach Bozo Trump, but here's one of them in the following film which depicts an astonishingly un-patriotic, disloyal 72 year old weird angry wanna' be man : If an individual does NOT despise the Trumps and what they do by now, I would suggest he or she seek a psychological evaluation:
Here's the pathetic fool spewing Anti-American hate, insulting a great war hero while at the same time, insulting our entire military: Then he's apparently surprised when he needs to downsize venues for veterans speeches? Did Vladimir Putin instruct him to spew this hate? This is actually the very same day I committed to obstructing this ungrateful, draft dodging clown and his republican flunkies until he is tossed out on his flat head:
What a national disgrace:
“Most conservatives I know won't back any attempt at boycott over difference of opinion and don't equate product sales with social issues, just because someone loosely affiliated holds a particular view.“
https://m.ranker.com/list/trump-support … ob-shelton
Maybe I missed something in that brief review of the first part of the article. Because it appears to make my point. Obviously most conservatives don't support boycotts because attempts to organize any quickly fizzle out.
Edit. I'd say the reason they don't work is we celebrate diversity and are fiercely independent. We don't follow a lead as much as we walk our own path, cheerfully giving room for others to do the same.
Your original post suggested that it was a leftist tactic to boycott products/people based on differing views.
I posted an article that gave several examples of conservatives attempting to boycott things based on differing views.
I’m not sure you how you feel that your point has been validated.
Both stands are pro life. Each chooses a different life to be concerned for.
So I guess the Nazis were pro life, They just chose a different life to be concerned for.
Are you Jake?
If not, that's just an ignorant way to say you don't give a rat's behind about women.
Wrong, I just prefer a scientific approach to the question of when life begins. And you seem to be under the delusion that killing a baby is justifiable if the circumstances inconvenience a woman.
You obviously don't have the faintest idea what my stand is, but thanks for judging without the benefit of fact. It certainly brings to question your claim of a scientific approach.
Well it's pretty simple. Abortion, For or against it?
If you are against abortion, at any time during the pregnancy and for whatever reason, you aren't approaching the matter scientifically.
You are using emotion and belief to inhibit your ability to look at all factors. And that's fine. It's your right. But don't delude yourself.
That's what I thought.
Again, the movement is Pro Life. Have fun trying to pinpoint when life begins using your Liberal science. The real scientific community is against you.
The “real” scientific community has not reached a consensus on when human life begins.
I’d ask you for a link to what leads you to believe otherwise, but I’d probably just get a stupid meme.
Not going to waste my time. You've decided to base your beliefs in some backwards morality rather than truth.
But she is right. There can be no "scientific" consensus as to the beginning of human life; it is completely an opinion call. Often based on whether the person is pro or con abortion.
You saying it’s true doesn’t make it so. We both have different beliefs but the difference is I’m not claiming to base mine on an absolute truth that does not exist - quite the opposite, in fact.
Ah good old moral relativism. Always seems to be the answer to the morally reprehensible mindset. I'm sure there's a lot of grey area when it comes to killing a baby in the womb.
It's not murder if the child isn't wanted, it's not murder if God forbid it be a financial burden on the parents. A horrible death by burning and dismemberment is much better than a potential life of inescapable suffering. How about when the parents don't like the gender of the baby?
But in reality the bulk of excuses for ending the life of a child comes down to some irresponsible teenager not wanting to wear a condom when they're fooling around. Alas these are the consequences for creating a society that pretends that sex is nothing more than a bodily function. Don't forget to shout your abortion proudly.
Whose reality is that, exactly? Because a bulk of abortions come from women in their 20s, more than half from women who already have children, and more than half from women who were using some form of contraceptive when they became pregnant.
Being pro-choice doesn’t mean that I approve of being irresponsible and using abortion as a method of birth control when someone couldn’t be bothered to put a condom on. But life is usually more complicated than that and I believe no one is more capable of making a decision that best suits their circumstances than the person who is actually living in them.
I don't use liberal or conservative science. The jury is still out, scientifically. Realistically, it's a terrible dilemma. A choice I don't think I would make, but never having been in that position I will never know.
I am not my sister's keeper. I have no right to force my moral beliefs onto her. Nor will I be there to help with bills, baby sitting, day care, or anything else. You won't be there either.
I won't sit in judgment, either. I happen to care for my fellow human beings. It's easy for you to argue in defense of something that isn't living and breathing. You can sit in judgment without doing anything other than sitting there. It's bs virtue signaling. Empty words.
But you will place judgment on pro lifers by labeling them anti abortion.
And with regards to violence, which laws aren't based in morality? Will you not impose your morality on a rapist, or a murderer? How about a spousal abuser? Will you not put your judgment on them?
If you don't think abortion is violence then you wouldn't mind seeing a picture of the end results. I'll spare you the ugly truth, it might cause for offense.
And how is it that a picture of a dead dismembered fetus is so repulsive to those who deny that a life was just taken?
You anti abortion adherents usually use a religious argument to complain about the right to choose. It's the religious argument I use to accept you are probably wrong. Mosaic law did not give the unborn the same rights as the living. Not even the soon to be born.
You can claim moral superiority on this one. I'm telling you there is no moral high ground on either side. One stand cares for both, but chooses priorities.
Those who give women latitude to make their own decisions within a reasonable amount of time after finding out they are pregnant are just trying to care for life and potential life. Far end stands such as yours leave the known life completely out of the equation. If you are going to grade morality, I think those stands are missing the reason morality is important in the discussion in the first place.
It's pro Life.
Libs always think they are the authority on labels. You can't stand when someone "misgenders" somebody, or rejects your false narratives of white privilege, or toxic masculinity, yet you have no problem putting negative labels on people you disagree with.
You don't want it to be pro life because that makes you pro death. Which is what you are.
Call a fetus a zygote months after it's developed into a living baby with all its organs, fully in tact ten fingers and ten toes. Whatever dilutes you from coming to the reality that you are in favor of killing babies for the mere fact that Johnny forgot to wear a condom.
You call it mercy and ask for dignity, I'll give you nothing, because you deserve nothing but horror and disgust.
The why behind their issues with free speech is as simple as that they know truth opposes their goals. An obvious question here is who could have known hitler would do what he did when he was a baby, much less a baby in utero?
A more immediate question is what would the astounding number of babies aborted in the USA since 1973 have become...how many people like my friend's oldest child, another friend's husband docs wanted to abort (and his resulting beautiful 5 children), my friend whose father abandoned his mother but came into this world to grow up, marry, and adopt with his wife making a home for the less fortunate, so many friends unable to conceive who adopted babies of every hue, how many Simone Biles, brilliant Dr. Mildred Jeffersons, Rita Levi-Montalicinis, Beethovens, Andre Bocellis (and such families as his), talented Paul Revere Williams, courageous Genna Jessons, Melissa Ohdens and an incalculable many more, how many dads, moms, teachers, athletes, movers/shakers, world-changers, their inventions, solutions for various kinds of problems, cures, works of art, have been lost/murdered by lying doctors and nurses, encouraged by lying politicians and lawyers.
Leaving countless girls and women hurting in confusion, grief-stricken and unable to face/admit what they've been through, the liars have been motivated by social activism, financial benefits, or hopes of advancing careers, and often by all three. They have used the women and the babies in as many ways as they could get by with and think they have gotten by with murder while lying through their teeth. They've convincingly used lies to the public when they could have encouraged study of all the research, but there are the Dr. Mildred Jeffersons, the groups like AAPLOG, and the organizations that truly care for mothers with a problematic pregnancy or who are abortion victims, basing their work on the truth about abortion, following in the footsteps of courageous people like John and Barbara Willke, Fannie Lou Hamer, and others who have called abortion what it is in the Jewish community, among blacks, for the Spanish, Italians, Icelanders, Russians, for every father, mother, and child everywhere.
The National Right to Life is far from the only organization providing truth and real help to pregnant mothers and those suffering from having had an abortion.
https://cradlemyheart.org/2018/04/15/he … e-victims/
http://postabortionhelp.org/pah/sibling … -abortion/
http://library.cityvision.edu/orgs/preg … e-center-0
http://afterabortion.org/2015/hurting-a … s-natural/
https://healthimpactnews.com/2015/babie … -be-heard/
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/sh … rting.aspx
https://www.enteringcanaan.com/siblings … f-abortion
https://www.torontoagainstabortion.org/ … rojustice/
Boycotting advertisers is an exercise of free speech. The Moral Majority used it extensively during the 80s, so it is not exclusively or primarily a liberal tactic.
We're all free to spend our money as we see fit, just as we're all free to express our opinions on social media and elsewhere.
I'm puzzled how exercising that freedom could be viewed as nuzzling free speech.
I simply wonder why that singular statement would be the impetus for such. The way I understand the backlash is that saying he wouldn't abort Hitler was the perceived offense. Really? I'm pro abortion but I doubt I'd consider such either.
I stated that most conservatives I know don't participate in such. The article implies my experience is typical. Most conservatives obviously don't participate in such, as evidenced by the comments in the article.
Okay, so where’s the evidence that “most liberals” support boycotts? How are you measuring this to ensure objectivity?
Well, maybe boycott isn't precisely accurate. Maybe campaigns to pressure companies into bowing to group sensibilities might be a better description? If not, the threat of boycott then the threat of lowered sales because of negative perception by some segments within the public.
Examples would include actors losing lucrative contracts because comments made decades ago cause fear of loss of revenue for studios in upcoming movies. I heard the other day a journalist lost his job with Rolling Stone because of a fear of future lost sales due to outrage that he advised fraternities to bar entrance to their parties of girls who had been drinking prior to the event. It apparently was perceived as sexist.
There are plenty of other examples.
My point is that your personal offense, or mine, to remarks made should be limited to debate on those remarks, not attempting to cause real harm to their person,or career. It's vindictive. Free speech shouldn't involve such behavior which looks more like the product of a desire for retribution than reasoned rebuttal.
I see nothing wrong with what he said. His premise is that no pro life person would do it. He's right. That should be the case.
I must say, and a pro choice NOT RIGHT WING person, I wouldn't abort/support abortion just because of what a baby could be in the future.
Also, the argument about boycotting is nonsense. Lots of right wingers do it too. And they should if they want to, even if it is for stupid things.
IF we find the beginning of consciousness, it seems we could have a scientific consensus. I think it's likely safe to state, consciousness doesn't begin with the single-celled zygote, thus making the stem-cell debate ridiculous IMO.
Depends on what you call "consciousness". Is a dog conscious? Other animals? If so, then it is not (necessarily) the beginning of human life.
But certainly a zygote is not a human life. It lives, but it is not human. Not yet.
And yet it is legal to kill something much more developed than a mere zygote. So when exactly does a zygote become viable?
Viable? As in self supporting? Around 16 years and 9 months. Before that it requires someone else to provide it's needs.
That's cold. But even that number is increasingly iffy. I've seen liberal kids with the cut off well into the twenties.
LOL - you got me there! Although with the increasing propensity to live with parents, on their dime, until the 30's or even 40's you may be understating the truth.
And yet living with one’s parents until 30 or so is pretty darn normal throughout the rest of the world. Maybe a 20 or 30-something living with their parents as long as they’re welcome is smarter than trying to be independent in a housing market that’s at a record high?
You may be right - it is probably smarter to live off of someone else, at least as long as they are happy to ante up the costs of supporting you. That way you can use your own money (if you have any) to buy more toys and fun things to do. And you'll probably have a much nicer place to live in that you could pay for yourself.
I'm sorry. Call me old school, call me a fossil from the past, but sponging off of other people because you want more than you can afford is not acceptable. Not to me.
I'll bet you voluntarily left home at 9 years of age and have supported yourself with no help from anyone since then. You also had to walk to school and it was uphill both ways. Right?
Wow. I'm impressed. You think Republicans are so self sufficient they can be on their own prior to puberty.
No, Randy isn't saying that. He is just stating that Wilderness has LFL i.e. that children should be raised in the toughest circumstances, living very rudimentary, even doing without. He is responding to Wilderness' LFL premise that children are to be tough & raised at a bare sustenance level. LFL dictates that children ought to earn their way, even very early. That is LFL.
Randy, what Wilderness have presented is LFL. LFL believes that children should be raised impoverished like roaches w/only the barest rudiments. LFL also believes that children should DO WITHOUT if possible & they should support & raise themselves. LFL at work.
Yep, I was working on the farm at 9 years of age, but it was normal at the time. I never lacked for anything and wanted to do my share if I could. I saw lots of poverty as a child and down here in the Deep South it was both black and white with problems feeding their families.
Dad witnessed the worst the world could offer during his time served in WWII. He talked very little about the death camps they liberated but they made a huge impact on him. He was always very generous to those in need, no matter the nationality.
One of my earliest memories was of going with Dad and helping fill a boxcar with all manner of food items, even corn and other things people could spare for the "refugees".
If only the very rich would act in such a manner...
Yep! 5 miles there, 7 miles home. In 4' of snow 10 months of the year and temperatures of 130 degrees the other 2 months.
Nothing is wrong with that as long as the adults are attending graduate school & establishing careers.
Andrew Cuomo just passed a bill in New York allowing abortions up to birth. This is a pro death movement. Disgusting.
"Under New York law, a woman’s health is not protected in the rare and tragic situation that a serious complication jeopardizes her health later in pregnancy; New York law only provides protection if a woman’s life is in danger."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-y … on-poison/
You left out a rather important part of the law - that being the phrase if a woman’s life is in danger. I'm no doctor, but would find it pretty unusual, to say the least, to think that allowing a birth, by Cesarean if necessary, after labor has begun, would endanger a woman's life more than an abortion. An abortion up to birth does not seem (legally) possible, then, and if done to save a life it is certainly not a "pro death movement".
Getting your facts from snopes?
The law says if the womans health is at risk. That's a very broad statement, it could mean anything mental, physical, financial health. Whatever lame excuse they can produce to kill their own child. As you said, the physical health of a woman past the 24th week is exceedingly rare.
Exceedingly rare, yes. That does not change the law, though. Nor does it change that not only will abortions "up to birth" be exceedingly rare, but it also puts that "pro death movement" into it's proper place; that of empty rhetoric without connection to reality.
And no, I very highly doubt that any court would consider "financial health" as a valid reason under law for a later term abortion and most surely not for an abortion just prior to birth. That, too, is empty rhetoric designed to raise emotions rather than appeal to reason and reality.
I've never heard of a mother wishing to abort her child going to court to get the job done. I have however, heard many instances where the abortionists falsify data and bolster their numbers to get more government funding.
Your point? That there are actual children killed in the womb (as opposed to a mere fetus or zygote)?
Of course there are. There are also people at every stage of life, from birth to 100 years old, that are murdered. And that has zero to do with the question of abortion.
Abortion hinges on the question of when a zygote becomes a human being, and while you seem positive you know the answer, you don't. You don't get to define that point (and yes, it is a definition, not a fact) for everyone.
I never said that I know when a zygote becomes viable, in fact my whole point is it can't be figured out so they don't know if they are killing a zygote or a fetus. Neither seems to matter in New York.
A zygote is a single, fertilized cell. As soon as it duplicates itself, then, it is no longer a zygote - the term for a multi-celled growth in the uterus is "embryo". Or perhaps a "tumor", depending on what the prediction for the future is. Or, as it ages and develops some unspecified amount, a "fetus".
You asked when a zygote becomes "viable", and I answered the best I could as you didn't define what you meant by "viable".
But that's not the same as "human being". And yes, you seen to have decided you know when a "fetus" becomes a "child", for you have yet to mention removing a non-human growth from the body. It is always a "child" in spite of obviously not being any such thing.
Did you just refer to a baby as a tumor? Now that's real science...
What a nice view of women you have. You either believe their life is not valuable enough to save or that they’re liars who want to kill a viable baby willy nilly.
That's a pretty broad brush you are trying to paint with. Contrary to your beliefs not all women believe murdering babies is acceptable.
You on the other hand, seem to believe that all babies are expendable.
So, you are saying your anti abortion view means women who might think about an abortion are of no value?
No, it means I'm disagreeing with her. I know libs are being taught that words are violence, moral outrage is more important than facts, and if someone disagrees with you it means they are hateful, racist, sexist, etc. Contrary to the narrative, words are just words.
Hateful words, purposely designed to elicit a negative reaction may be just words but they do damage. Accusing women of murdering babies when having an abortion is designed to attack them emotionally.
Doing such does more to cement an opinion that the person who said them has no respect for women than anything else they could do.
You seem awfully confused about what I believe.
The public health law is amended by adding a new article 25-A to
read as follows:
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT
SECTION 2599-AA. ABORTION.
§ 2599-AA. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.
Like women need a man to tell them what to do with their bodies when they are those who carry the child. In many cases, economics and other unknown hardships play a factor in the decision whether to rear the child or not.
As a man, I don't feel qualified to make so important a decision for another human being. But that's just me, and I realize others feel compelled to do so no matter if they will never be in such a situation themselves. Surprise, surprise!!
Let's get back on topic. Abortion is a highly controversial subject. One is either for or against abortion. Mr. Shapiro indicated that he doesn't believe in abortion. He contended that all life is valuable even Hitler's(really, ugh?). Mr. Shapiro is a staunchly conservative talk show host. However, there are many variants in the abortion question.
by Sharlee 10 days ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
by Sharlee 3 days ago
Overturning Roe v. Wade would be ‘damaging’ to the economy ... "Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday said eliminating women’s access to abortion would have “very damaging effects” on the US economy, keeping some women from completing their educations and reducing their lifetime earnings...
by Scott Belford 3 days ago
If the leaked Supreme Court Decision on Roe v Wade becomes reality, then it won't be a Woman's Right to Choose and control her own body that goes by the way-side in Conservative States - it is any previous ruling that is based on the Right to Privacy which will vanish as well.That is what these...
by Christin Sander 10 years ago
Do you think women will band together to boycott sponsors of Rush Limbaugh?He has taken his statements against women too far this time. Normally I say don't feed the trolls, but this one has a large enough audience that he is dangerous. Women who use contraceptives are not sluts - his...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
It behooves me that those who claim to be pro-life are oftentimes pro-war and pro-death penalty. Also, these people who believe that any woman who becomes pregnant, should have the baby no matter what circumstances the mother is in. Furthermore, these prolifers are often...
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
The latest revelations about google and their bias clearly shows a problem with this company and also the social media that they are a part of. The only thing they understand is $$$. If half their customers are to walk away, do you think they will finally get it? I normally are not big on boycotts....
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|