Mark Zuckerberg Is Now Advertising on Rush Limbaugh

[Newsjock]

Source: Valleywag

The NASDAQ Prince is making it clear he'll do whatever it takes to push through his version of immigration reform: Zuck's FWD.us lobbying giant is now bankrolling ads on the Rush Limbaugh show.

The spots, which are technically tied to Americans for a Conservative Direction (a FWD.us subsidiary), cheerlead candidates like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio and their hardline, anti-amnesty approach to immigration:

Female voice: If they have a job, if they pay a fine and if they learn English...

Male voice: ...they can go to the back of the line with no federal benefits. That means no welfare, no Obamacare — nothing.

Read more: http://valleywag.gawker.com/mark-zuckerberg-is-now-advertising-on-rush-limbaugh-510657336

[el_bryanto]

1. I don't know

I guess the logic is that in order to get immigration reform we are going to have to convince people that immigrants aren't going to be rewarded for cheating?

The mention of Obamacare seems odd though- as Rush Limbaugh Listeners don't want anybody to get Obamacare.

Bryant

[FreakinDJ]

2. Fuck Facebook

[ruffburr]

3. +1,000

[CJCRANE]

14. + Another 1000 nt

[freshwest]

16. Same thing.

[Puzzledtraveller]

4. talk about strange bedfellows..

[giftedgirl77]

5. Rand Paul was at Facebook yesterday

bragging about how he signed on their big wall. I never use my Facebook anyways so that was the final push to delete it.

[Wellstone ruled]

6. Zuckerberg is just another

Ayan Rand idiot. I got mine,F--you!!!!!! Sonny,this will bit you in the butt big time.

[Major Hogwash]

15. Yup, he's a moran.

There is no doubt that growing up white, he felt superior about himself.

[DinahMoeHum]

7. Remember, folks, FB was started by a guy looking to get laid.

[SunSeeker]

10. LOL. Wasn't everything? nt

[blkmusclmachine]

8. .

.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Immigration 'reform' is just another extension of anti gay legislation, 'moderate Democrats' inisted

that protections for LGBT people be removed from the bill, they claimed they did so because if they didn't the Republicans would which is basically saying 'we do their dirty work so they don't have to, because what they want is what we want'.
So frankly folks, I no longer give s shit about your 'Straights Only' law.

[patrice]

12. While I do like synergy between issues, don't you think it is a good idea too, at some point in

the process toward your specific goals on a single issue, to show something that amounts to "These are OUR votes, OUR constituency, and no one else's"?

It's good to work together with other issues when you can, but part of what MAKES that work is when you CAN show your numbers and, hence, the political strength that makes those kinds of relationships/coalitions work FOR YOU.

I was thinking about how issues evolve in the electorate, some are for, some are against, and some are neither, so as the "neither" group evolves and some or most of it becomes part of the "for" or part of the "against", there'd be a need periodically to demonstrate what your numbers are at a given point in the evolution of the WHOLE set of issues that are on the table. No?

Not trying to change your mind, just brainstorming what I'd want out of such a situation if I were doing the work.

[marions ghost]

11. gag

Fuck Zuck.

[freshwest]

17. +1

[patrice]

13. I hate this. nt

[freshwest]

18. Also.