Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread"

Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread" (Page 39)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2018, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I thought the Cubs moved to Comcast Sports, the same with the Braves.
I don’t really follow sports, but I’m guessing Comcast has a national contract and WGN has a local one.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2018, 03:06 PM
 
Holy crap... in two weeks it’ll be the 70th anniversary of the Cubs on WGN.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2018, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Holy crap... in two weeks it’ll be the 70th anniversary of the Cubs on WGN.
Radio, tv or both?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2018, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don’t really follow sports, but I’m guessing Comcast has a national contract and WGN has a local one.
WGN was replaced by WGN America on DirecTV three years ago. No Cubbies. I was a Cubs fan because they managed to beat the Dodgers no matter how bad they were, plus almost all the games were on WGN. Once the D-Backs started playing i still followed them as my second team.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2018, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Radio, tv or both?
Just TV.

WGN radio lost the Cubs in 2014. That was (essentially) a 90 year thing.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2018, 02:49 AM
 
I’m finding it fascinating the YouTube shooter is like, an ideological agenda Rorschach test.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 5, 2018 at 03:44 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2018, 06:55 AM
 
Yeah, National Review ran a story titled Vegan Shooter Was Angry at YouTube’s Demonetization Policy. (I'm sure the lack of proper animal protein was what pushed her over the edge!)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2018, 10:01 AM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2018, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yeah, National Review ran a story titled Vegan Shooter Was Angry at YouTube’s Demonetization Policy. (I'm sure the lack of proper animal protein was what pushed her over the edge!)
To be fair, the active shooter bingo card I got for this round had “disgruntled YouTuber” as the free square.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 5, 2018 at 03:28 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2018, 02:22 PM
 
The weather guy I mentioned from WGN isn’t attending his own yearly climate change seminar.

When asked if it was pressure from Sinclair, he said “no, I needed the extra time because I’m producing three new segments on climate change”.

This’ll be fun.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2018, 05:51 PM
 
Are the Democrats banking too much on the Blue Wave and not moving chess pieces in place for the 2020 Presidental election?

My grim prediction is the Blue Wave won’t pan-out as well as hoped because of leakage from theoretically “safe” seats.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2018, 09:49 PM
 
...
"Donald Trump was quicker to deploy the National Guard to our border because of bogus reports he saw on Fox News than he was to deploy them to aid the people of Puerto Rico after a devastating hurricane."
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 05:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are the Democrats banking too much on the Blue Wave and not moving chess pieces in place for the 2020 Presidental election?

My grim prediction is the Blue Wave won’t pan-out as well as hoped because of leakage from theoretically “safe” seats.
I think they are wise to keep Republicans guessing about who will lead the charge to evict Trump. Stops the "Crooked Elizabeth/Nancy/Joe/Oprah/Etc" campaign from gathering enough steam.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 09:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are the Democrats banking too much on the Blue Wave and not moving chess pieces in place for the 2020 Presidental election?
I don't think the Dems have a clue who is going to come to the fore to challenge in 2020. They're dealing with their own little internal wrestling match with a lot of upstart progressives gaining momentum in the smaller, down-ticket races.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are the Democrats banking too much on the Blue Wave and not moving chess pieces in place for the 2020 Presidental election?

My grim prediction is the Blue Wave won’t pan-out as well as hoped because of leakage from theoretically “safe” seats.
When had the party done chess moves to set-up potential candidates?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 02:04 PM
 
Always?

Obama and Clinton didn’t just spring up overnight.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 04:40 PM
 
Details, son. Always is a lazy ass answer.

Obama was less a chess move and more amazing luck. 2008 was supposed to be Hillary. I'm also curious what chess moves the GOP did.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
When had the party done chess moves to set-up potential candidates?
If you don’t take my word for it, trust this person.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
2008 was supposed to be Hillary.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm also curious what chess moves the GOP did.
The GOP considered this round a bye. Trump was supposed to lose.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 05:03 PM
 
2008 Hillary would not have done well, as being secy of state she got more popular. Until, sensing her popularity rise, BENGHAZI.

Then again, her opponent...
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 05:37 PM
 
Ehh...

2008 Clinton wouldn’t have pissed off the entire progressive wing of the Party, and Obama wouldn’t have been a sore loser like Sanders was.

If only because unlike Sanders, Obama’s actually a Democrat.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
I don't think the Dems have a clue who is going to come to the fore to challenge in 2020. They're dealing with their own little internal wrestling match with a lot of upstart progressives gaining momentum in the smaller, down-ticket races.
That’s like, bad, right?

I know I’m sounding like my dad when I was a Bernie guy and he was for Hillary because she could “win”, but don’t we need to worry about winning right now?

There’s a time for progressivism. I wish it was, but this is not it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 06:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I think they are wise to keep Republicans guessing about who will lead the charge to evict Trump. Stops the "Crooked Elizabeth/Nancy/Joe/Oprah/Etc" campaign from gathering enough steam.
Does this count as a strategy if they actually have no idea who’s going to lead the charge?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Does this count as a strategy if they actually have no idea who’s going to lead the charge?
If you really don't know, you can't possibly give it away. Even if you get extorted by Cambridge Analytica.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 06:41 PM
 
True, but for the non-demagogue, these sorts of things require long-term planning.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Does this count as a strategy if they actually have no idea who’s going to lead the charge?
Sure. You just scattershot derision at any and all possible names as often as necessary. I mean, the GOP has its own tv network (or does the network have its own political party? I get confused) so getting the message out at any time isn’t a problem.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 07:15 PM
 
For the second year in a row, Trump will not be attending the annual White House Correspondents Dinner. In his place, Sarah Huckabee Sanders will attend. You know, the person in charge of lying to the White House correspondents on a daily basis. Should be fun.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2018, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Sure. You just scattershot derision at any and all possible names as often as necessary. I mean, the GOP has its own tv network (or does the network have its own political party? I get confused) so getting the message out at any time isn’t a problem.
Whoops! Indefinite subject on my part.

The “they” is the Democratic Party.

The Democrats appear to have no idea who’s going to lead the charge against Trump. If appearances match reality, is this a good strategy for the Democratic Party.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2018, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
True, but for the non-demagogue, these sorts of things require long-term planning.
I think they might wait to gauge the landscape nearer the time. They will either need to find someone inoffensive who just has to stand there and not look bad in order to beat an unpopular Trump, or they might need someone more actively anti-Trump if they find him in a more popular moment.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2018, 07:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you don’t take my word for it, trust this person.
This explains nothing.

Receipts, subego, post 'em.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
The GOP considered this round a bye. Trump was supposed to lose.
Yeah and Trump wasn't supposed to get nominated so...

Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
2008 Hillary would not have done well, as being secy of state she got more popular. Until, sensing her popularity rise, BENGHAZI.

Then again, her opponent...
No, women's popularity is tied to their whether they're in power or trying to get in power.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2018, 08:12 PM
 
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...y-dance-video/
The Federal Communications Commission has denied a public records request that sought emails regarding Chairman Ajit Pai's "Harlem Shake" video.
MuckRock had asked for all communications between the FCC and the Daily Caller about the video, as well as all "Talking points or promotional plans regarding the article."

The FCC's denial of the request said it found just "two pages of internal email exchanges between personnel in the Office of the Chairman and the Office of Media Relations concerning the release of the video."

The FCC said it found that these internal emails "reflect deliberative discussion preliminary to release of the video and that they therefore fall within the scope of the deliberative process privilege," and that "disclosure would foreseeably harm the staff's ability to execute its functions by freely discussing relevant matters."
Pai has been as opaque as possible about everything.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This explains nothing.

Receipts, subego, post 'em.
I’m less interested in being right than I am in having a discussion.

Compare and contrast 2008, where we had Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Biden, with 2016 where we had Clinton, and 2020 where after Franken was taken down, there’s no one.

I don’t care about the label attached to this, I care about how it impacts a Democrat becoming President in 2020.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 05:24 PM
 
Okay here's a different question then: Do the Dems have no apparent bench because Hillary scared everyone away, Bevause the party has few good people, or because young people have had no interest in joining politics.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 06:20 PM
 
They jumped the gun w obama. Had they given hillary "her turn" he could have been a senator or governor who had more experience and that would have taken away something his detractors always complained about. Also the birther thing.

Of course the upside of relative newcomers is fewer scandals in their closets. The fact we don't know about them means they'll be a great october surprise?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 06:32 PM
 
That was Obama's decision. The entire point of democracy is to let the people decide who's ready. While I think clown-car primaries like the GOPs in 2016 are counter-productive, the Dem primary was also terrible because of a lack of challengers.

Honestly, the process of elevation and success is like voodoo to me. Charisma is obviously key, but we've seen that experience has become almost a negative. The policy part is almost luck – unless you're a chameleon with a keen insight into what people want. What's left after that? Money? Intelligence?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Okay here's a different question then: Do the Dems have no apparent bench because Hillary scared everyone away, Bevause the party has few good people, or because young people have had no interest in joining politics.
My instinct is to lay this at Hillary’s feet. She sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Everybody assumed this was locked-up for 8 more years.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My instinct is to lay this at Hillary’s feet. She sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Everybody assumed this was locked-up for 8 more years.
True, but during 2016 people openly pined for people like Franken and Warren. Not a 'deep' bench per se, but there were pieces on the board if Hillary didn't exist.

Does Hillary being the heir apparent mute the rise of political stars? I don't think it does.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 07:57 PM
 
I can’t see how Hillary doesn’t mute the rise of political stars.

Warren and Franken knew what side of the toast the butter was on. They weren’t going to get in her way. Where would they be positioned on the board if this wasn’t a concern? Same for other less notable pieces.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I can’t see how Hillary doesn’t mute the rise of political stars.
Hillary doesn't mute rising stars becoming governor. She doesn't mute stars rising to the Senate. Booker and Warren both happened during the 'muted' time.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Warren and Franken knew what side of the toast the butter was on. They weren’t going to get in her way.
So you admit they were on the bench then?

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where would they be positioned on the board if this wasn’t a concern? Same for other less notable pieces.
The DNC would torpedo them for Hillary? The woman no one likes?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 08:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I can’t see how Hillary doesn’t mute the rise of political stars.

Warren and Franken knew what side of the toast the butter was on. They weren’t going to get in her way. Where would they be positioned on the board if this wasn’t a concern? Same for other less notable pieces.
I think it is strange to look at what happened and see anything nefarious, and seems connected to the “Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate” narrative that is blown way out of proportion. She won the popular vote by the same margin that Bush won in 2004, roughly 3 million votes.

Clinton had built her campaign for literally over a decade, and that meant that she had worked with pretty much all people in the Democratic Party for quite a while to build towards her campaign. That includes getting support from Senators and members of the House. If these people believe she is the best candidate with the best campaign, then that's not muting anyone. Usually you just get one shot at being a contender for being a presidential candidate, and I think it is smart and means you are self-aware when you recognize that someone else has a better shot at the Presidency than you. And even then Sanders did not make it completely easy for Clinton to garner the nomination. Arguably, the Democrats offered a choice between two very different Presidential candidates.

The GOP did it the other way around, they had 17 candidates, you couldn't even remember all of their names. In the end most of them all canceled each other out and the person with the biggest ego and best brand recognition got the nomination. I don't think that's a model others should emulate.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The GOP did it the other way around, they had 17 candidates, you couldn't even remember all of their names.
A challenge!

 


I stalled at 12. One I'll never be able to name because he's a rando congressman, I think.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 08:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My instinct is to lay this at Hillary’s feet. She sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Everybody assumed this was locked-up for 8 more years.
Arguably the most qualified candidate in centuries, lined up to follow a popular, successful groundbreaker was considered a no-brainer by people whose biggest mistake was assuming that politics was still about running a country lost to a campaign that consisted of literally nothing but dirty tricks and lies, and you blame Hillary? Some people would call that victim-blaming.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I stalled at 12. One I'll never be able to name because he's a rando congressman, I think.
No way I'd get to 17, probably closer to 8 perhaps. Honestly, I think the fact that we can't even remember nowhere near all of the candidates says a lot. If anything, I think there was a clear lack of average quality on the Republican side. The two front runners, Trump and Cruz, were hated by GOP establishment. (Cruz's unpopularity in the Senate, including amongst other Republican Senators, is legendary.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 10:57 PM
 
Let's see what Fox News is covering on the day the President's lawyer was raided...

 
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2018, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No way I'd get to 17, probably closer to 8 perhaps. Honestly, I think the fact that we can't even remember nowhere near all of the candidates says a lot. If anything, I think there was a clear lack of average quality on the Republican side. The two front runners, Trump and Cruz, were hated by GOP establishment. (Cruz's unpopularity in the Senate, including amongst other Republican Senators, is legendary.)
I missed three familiar names. Rand, Perry, and Huckabee.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2018, 07:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Hillary doesn't mute rising stars becoming governor. She doesn't mute stars rising to the Senate. Booker and Warren both happened during the 'muted' time.

So you admit they were on the bench then?

The DNC would torpedo them for Hillary? The woman no one likes?
I got grammar goal-posted.

The original question used mute as a verb, as in to soften or to dampen, which is what I replied to. This response is treating it as an adjective, as in a person who is unable to speak.

There is a limited amount of national attention available. Hillary commanded more of this purely by virtue of being a 20-ton juggernaut. My question was where are Booker and Warren positioned if they didn’t have to compete with Hillary for attention. Their standing is muted by virtue of sharing the arena with such strong competition.

Likewise, Hillary was firmly positioned to become the most powerful reptile on the planet, and holds a grudge. If, like Booker or Warren, their job is going to be to work with her for the next 4-8 years, would this not put a damper on how aggressively they position themselves as competitors?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2018, 07:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think it is strange to look at what happened and see anything nefarious
I’m not accusing her of anything, though.

I mean, I note she’ll stomp you if you cross her, but that’s how most politicians got to where they are. That’s not nefarious, that’s just business.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2018, 08:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Arguably the most qualified candidate in centuries, lined up to follow a popular, successful groundbreaker was considered a no-brainer by people whose biggest mistake was assuming that politics was still about running a country lost to a campaign that consisted of literally nothing but dirty tricks and lies, and you blame Hillary? Some people would call that victim-blaming.
I wasn’t talking about her losing.

On that subject, however, holy shit, you better believe I blame her.

She lost to a moron. Even if it wasn’t her fault, it’s still her fault, because he’s a moron.

A moron... who wasn’t even trying to win.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2018, 10:38 AM
 
Bolton appears to be cleaning house.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2018, 11:47 AM
 
Nice. “Biggest “Black Lives Matter” FB page a scam.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/09/tech...age/index.html
( Last edited by andi*pandi; Apr 10, 2018 at 01:17 PM. Reason: bad url)
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:49 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,