- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 59,366
- Reaction score
- 27,051
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Unless it supports your position, no?
Show one time I've used it to support any position. I dare ya.
Unless it supports your position, no?
Just out of curiosity, do you condone or condemn such remarks?
aww shush up.. he's like your lil twin brother...that votes GOP instead of commie.
Just trying to educate you. He and Thurmond were brethren segregationists. And please, no need for vulgarity. Makes you appear juvenile.
Nielsen, can beg all they want. They're a dying company trying to keep up with the times. Their sample is too small and their demographics are an insult to advertisement companies like my own. Simply put, they're as relevant to the advertisement world as Twitter. Facebook provides far more information and isn't bogged down by things like sample size etc.
How did you create this list? I found nothing in any of those threads that could be considered racist. In fact most of the threads never even mention this clown from South Carolina.
More than half of the tweeters are people of colour
You have to be kidding me
Twitter Is Growing Faster Than Facebook In The US [STATS] - AllTwitter
You're emotional arguments are seriously lacking. You're also assuming these twitter users don't have Facebook accounts or something. We get it man. Paint the entire Tea Party as racist. Dismiss an orgy of data which clearly shows the real racism is on the left towards Blacks who "aren't down with the cause"
At the end of 2011, Facebook had 133 million US users; Twitter had 24 million. There’s still plenty of room to grow for the little micro-blogging network that could, while the giant Facebook has pretty much saturated the US market.
ROFL more proof that you have no idea how ratings/sponsorships actually work. What's best is that you just contradicted yourself. Sponsorship rates decrease as space becomes harder to fill in. As major companies refuse to sponsor a program that is not only hemorrhaging viewers but also alienating millions of potential costumers, smaller companies follow suit. By default this would mean News Corps has to lower its rates and loses profit because of Beck.
If Beck's ratings were an attraction to companies, they wouldn't drop him right and left, they'd support him. However, they're not. Why?
But let's say for a second your answer was coherent and you understood what it is you're talking about. Numbers are still not important. Demographics are. Demographics are far more important than actual number of viewers. If Glenn Beck had 900K viewers in the 18-49 age groups he'd be far profitable than somebody who has 2.1 million viewers in other demographics. Let's just say that by some miracle Glenn Beck had 2.1 million viewers in the 18-49. This is from 3.1 million just a year ago. Would you consider that a net loss in profit? Or net gain? Now factor in the dozens of sponsors he's lost in just over a year. Now factor in the sponsors who pull out from your network because of that show.
Still think ratings are all that important?
I just ignored the rest of your gibberish and red herrings.
Who will the blacks vote for, the Republicans or the Democrats?
They will vote to stay on the plantation, and hope for the free stuff.
aka: Overwhelmingly Democrat.
No... not racist... not at all.
Citations please.
Twitter is hardly a measurement of anything.