Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Varmint

Liberal Media Bias

Recommended Posts

So the AP declares Hillary the presumptive nominee the day before the final primaries (6/7). Was this done to impact turnout, discouraging Bernie Sanders voters? I think so. I would not be at all surprised to find the AP and Hillary's campaign are coordinating and colluding on message.

It does appear that the graphic in the email Hillary's campaign sent out announcing this was created 2 days earlier, on 6/4/16, and is still online on HRC.onl, titled "secret win v2, 060416".

If it was created by the campaign days before the announcement, somehow it's got the exact text from the AP tweet that didn't go out until 5:20PM on 6/6.

Edited by Walking Boot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Walking Boot said:

So the AP declares Hillary the presumptive nominee the day before the final primaries (6/7). Was this done to impact turnout, discouraging Bernie Sanders voters? I think so. I would not be at all surprised to find the AP and Hillary's campaign are coordinating and colluding on message.

It does appear that the graphic in the email Hillary's campaign sent out announcing this was created 2 days earlier, on 6/4/16, and is still online on HRC.onl, titled "secret win v2, 060416".

Would it be liberal media bias to try and screw the more liberal candidate?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Would it be liberal media bias to try and screw the more liberal candidate?

 

Will let you know if that ever happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2016 at 9:51 AM, squistion said:

Well, it certainly explains all the news coverage Trump has gotten...Oh, wait...

Lots of coverage by MSM, 90% negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Would it be liberal media bias to try and screw the more liberal candidate?

 

No, no... The are liberal with their biases, not liberally biased.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN Headline: Ditka: Trump invited me, but I wont go

IMO, the headline implies Mr Ditka is not a Trump fan. However, when you read the article, he clearly is.

I can help him, but I don't know if I can give a speech at the convention. I don't travel much anymore except between Chicago and Florida, and giving a speech at a convention isn't really my style. ... I spoke with Mr. Trump this afternoon, and he invited me. But I don't think I'm going to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump trolls 24/7 to get news coverage, openly brags about it. Gets non stop free coverage that is a big part of how he wins. People then whine about it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Headline: Trump invited me, but I wont go

Ditka actual quote: "He invited me. But I don't think I'm going to go".

damn you liberal media....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The General said:

Trump trolls 24/7 to get news coverage, openly brags about it. Gets non stop free coverage that is a big part of how he wins. People then whine about it :lol:

I fully understand, but you have to admit, the headline is misleading at best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cjw_55106 said:

I fully understand, but you have to admit, the headline is misleading at best. 

Sure but it's clickbait, no? That's 90% of Trump's campaign and what online and TV journalism is.

If you need a counterbalance to perceived liberal biased headlines/articles just mix drudgereport in your daily internet viewing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Getzlaf15 said:

CBS, NBC, MSNBC  :lmao:

No mention of Benghazi or email for 10 seconds... must be liberal bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lakerstan said:

Facts have a liberal bias.

:lmao: Just ask any bloated entitlement program administrator or economic planner and you'll get that answer, but ask for results... not as much. Also, your premise is that newsmen report facts only. Not necessarily so. Worldview can account for premise and bias or leaning can be shown to influence subject matter choice, etc. 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?

...

Mr. Scarborough, a frequent critic of liberal media bias, said he was concerned that Mr. Trump was becoming increasingly erratic, and asked rhetorically, “How balanced do you have to be when one side is just irrational?”

Mr. Scarborough is on the opinion side of the news business. It’s much dodgier for conventional news reporters to treat this year’s political debate as one between “normal” and “abnormal,” as the Vox editor in chief Ezra Klein put it recently.

 

In a sense, that’s just what reporters are doing. And it’s unavoidable. Because Mr. Trump is conducting his campaign in ways we’ve not normally seen.

 

No living journalist has ever seen a major party nominee put financial conditions on the United States defense of NATO allies, openly fight with the family of a fallen American soldier, or entice Russia to meddle in a United States presidential election by hacking his opponent (a joke, Mr. Trump later said, that the news media failed to get). And while coded appeals to racism or nationalism aren’t new — two words: Southern strategy — overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new.

 

“If you have a nominee who expresses warmth toward one of our most mischievous and menacing adversaries, a nominee who shatters all the norms about how our leaders treat families whose sons died for our country, a nominee proposing to rethink the alliances that have guided our foreign policy for 60 years, that demands coverage — copious coverage and aggressive coverage,” said Carolyn Ryan, The New York Times’s senior editor for politics. “It doesn’t mean that we won’t vigorously pursue reporting lines on Hillary Clintonwe are and we will.”

 

You can fairly say about Mrs. Clinton that no presidential candidate has secured a major party nomination after an F.B.I. investigation into her use of a private email server for, in some cases, top-secret national security information. That warrants scrutiny, along with her entire record. But the candidates do not produce news at the same rate.

 

“When controversy is being stoked, it’s our obligation to report that,” said the Washington Post managing editor Cameron Barr. “If one candidate is doing that more aggressively and consistently than the other, that is an imbalance for sure.” But, he added, “it’s not one that we create, it’s one that the candidate is creating.”

 

Some of it was baked into the two candidacies. Mrs. Clinton has been around so long that voters can more easily envision what her presidency would look like. And to say she hasn’t been amply scrutinized is to ignore the fact that there are more “gates” affixed to her last name — Travelgate, Whitewatergate, now Emailgate — than there are gates in the Old City of Jerusalem.

Mr. Trump is a political novice who has spent his career running a private company and starring in a hit reality show. He’s hardly an unknown, but there is so much we still don’t know about his views and his familiarity with the major issues. His positions would be big news even if they didn’t so often seem to break with decades-old policy consensus (which they do).

 

The media reaction to it all has been striking, what The Columbia Journalism Review called “a Murrow moment.” It’s not unusual to see news stories describe him as “erratic” without attribution to an opponent. The “fact checks” of his falsehoods continue to pile up in staggering numbers, far outpacing those of Mrs. Clinton. And, on Sunday, the CNN “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter called upon journalists and opinion makers to challenge Mr. Trump’s “dangerous” claims that the electoral system is rigged against him. Failure to do so would be unpatriotic, Mr. Stelter said.

 

While there are several examples of conservative media criticism of Mr. Trump this year, the candidate and his supporters are reprising longstanding accusations of liberal bias. “The media is trying to take Donald Trump out,” Rush Limbaugh declared last week.

 

A lot of core Trump supporters certainly view it that way. That will only serve to worsen their already dim view of the news media, which initially failed to recognize the power of their grievances, and therefore failed to recognize the seriousness of Mr. Trump’s candidacy.

 

This, however, is what being taken seriously looks like. As Ms. Ryan put it to me, Mr. Trump’s candidacy is “extraordinary and precedent-shattering” and “to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous with readers.”

It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.

 

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

 

 

- I saw this on the front page of the NYT a week ago now - 8/7/16 - but I've thought it merited discussion.

Personally - while I think everything Donald Trump has gotten from the press post winning the nomination has been largely fair and accurate, I found this piece really kind of unbelievably self-consciously pathetic and cloying. It reads like some kind of apologia explaining why professional journalists, pundits or reporters should drop all pretense of ethics or objectivity in reporting on Trump because of some sort of greater or higher calling or danger at stake from his race for the presidency.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Trump Ruins Media 'Objectivity'?

New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg was granted front-page real estate in the August 8 newspaper for an essay called, “The Challenge Trump Poses to Objectivity.” As with all things revolving around this candidate, this is a Crisis demanding Deep Thinking.

Rutenberg asks, “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

Answer: like a dangerous, racist demagogue.

Some questions on the matter:

Why wasn’t the answer “Impartiality is mandatory in political coverage”? If a reporter cannot manage this — and some simply cannot — then he should recuse himself from the assignment. This is first-semester journalism. Why can’t that cardinal rule be followed?

How is this suddenly a crisis? Trump’s been campaigning for over a year. Where were all those journalists presumably struggling with this issue (Rutenberg wouldn’t otherwise be writing about it) during the primaries? Answer: Trump was running against other Republicans, and that was fun. But now he’s running against Hillary Clinton, and her camp is pushing this narrative, so an obedient media must project it, as it always does, which leads to the next point.

How is it that in August 2016 a New York Times columnist finds himself struggling with such a crisis of objectivity and journalistic ethics when the press has broken the rules for decades? The same question could have been posed in 1964. Just substitute Barry Goldwater’s name. It works perfectly. What about Ronald Reagan in 1968, 1976 and, most emphatically, 1980? Substitute the name. Or Pat Buchanan in 1992? Or Ted Cruz this year?

One needn’t be a conservative to suffer this treatment. Just run against a Democrat, and see what happens. Take Mitt Romney in 2012. (In fact, every Republican candidate in that race.) Bush 41. Bush 43. Even when a Republican enjoys media sympathies (John McCain and Bob Dole), come general election time all niceties go out the window.

So when Rutenberg suggests that Trump is so objectionable that the conscientious, or even patriotic journalists “would move closer than (they’ve) ever been to being oppositional,” which he sees as “uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist (he’s) ever known,” conservatives shake their heads in disbelief — or burst out laughing.

Rutenberg concluded that a “Murrow moment” of advocacy against Trump is required. To do less would be “an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.” Bill Clinton was surrounded by scandals — legal, political and personal — when he ran for president, but there was no need for a Murrow moment. Obama was surrounded by one pile of scandals when he ran in 2008, and then an even bigger, far more serious heap when he ran for re-election. No Murrow moment. And now we have Hillary Clinton, who’s surrounded by the most serious political, legal and personal scandals of them all.

The solution? Go after Trump.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/44238/print

 

- I just offer this as an opposing piece from an obviously conservative/right wing site (I don't know what it is, I haven't even looked at it, just assuming). I disagree with some of the comps (like Reagan and even Goldwater) but the point holds true, if the press decides a candidate is "dangerous" or offensive that does not technically allow them to drop their mandatory ethical duty of objectivity.

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBS: "We're doing all we can to get Hillary elected." 

 

At least they come right out and say it now. 

Anyone who denies the liberal media bias now is just being willfully ignorant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone in this country with any power at all should be doing everything in their power to get HIllary elected.  That's just being a good citizen.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, massraider said:

Anyone in this country with any power at all should be doing everything in their power to get HIllary elected.  That's just being a good citizen.  

Nice job missing the point, but at least you got your political slap in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preamble: Everyone who is not conservative until their own are taken care of and hence as liberal as they can afford to be is an idiot and an enemy of the process that got our species this far.

Article 1: Imagination is liberal and care is conservative. It is as stupid that care has become liberal as it is that knowing/telling should be in the hands of any conservative.

Article 2: Everything else is media-created stasis in the name and at the behest of exploitive commerce.

nufced

Edited by wikkidpissah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Walking Boot said:

CBS: "We're doing all we can to get Hillary elected." 

 

At least they come right out and say it now. 

Anyone who denies the liberal media bias now is just being willfully ignorant. 

 

You didn't read the whole thing did you...or watch it.

And it was CNN...wasn't it?

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, avoiding injuries said:

Nice job missing the point, but at least you got your political slap in. 

Yeah, it's a pretty fine point I'm missing, very nuanced.  I get it, the media is actively trying to elect Hillary, and has lost objectivity.  

 

My answer is:  I should hope so.  Part of the media's job is to call a spade a spade.  The Guardian has a piece I was just reading called:  The Lies Trump Told This Week.  

''This week''.   I love that.  Part of an ongoing series, updated weekly, apparently.  :lol:

When faced with this, I am quite comfortable with the media feeling a responsibility, as the Times and the Washington Post clearly do, to make sure readers know exactly what kind of person is really close to running the free world.  

 

Basically, I think conservatives have a point, and I believe there is bias in almost all media sources.  Unfortunately, I think bringing it up now is pointless, as defeating Trump to me is a bipartisan issue, and quite a few conservatives agree, obviously.  

Now isn't the time to point out the liberal media bias, because a lot of what is being called bias, is just common sense and decency.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump: says crazy stuff in primaries

Primary Voters: we love it!

Media: Trump said something crazy and primary voters love it!

Trump: no one knows how to promote like me -- the media eats out of my hand because I'm great for ratings.

Trump: says crazy stuff in general election

General Election Voters:  we hate it!

Media: Trump said something crazy and general election voters hate it!

Trump:   :cry:LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wdcrob said:

Trump: says crazy stuff in primaries

Primary Voters: we love it!

Media: Trump said something crazy and primary voters love it!

Trump: no one knows how to promote like me -- the media eats out of my hand because I'm great for ratings.

Trump: says crazy stuff in general election

General Election Voters:  we hate it!

Media: Trump said something crazy and general election voters hate it!

Trump:   :cry:LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS

/thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Walking Boot said:

CBS: "We're doing all we can to get Hillary elected." 

 

At least they come right out and say it now. 

Anyone who denies the liberal media bias now is just being willfully ignorant. 

Just to be fair & balanced I'd say put that side by side with what CBS president Les Moonves said about Trump a few months ago, and that was that Trump is good for ratings so Trump is good for CBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be objective is to put aside bias and be accurate.

Calling Trump on all of his nonsense is part of being objective.

Calling Hillary on hers is also part of being objective, but pretending that Trump's nonsense and Hillary's nonsense are in any sense roughly equivalent, in volume or in severity, is not accurate. Hinting at such equivalence would itself be a form of bias.

You might think that reporting is biased if it makes Trump look bad, but that's really not true at all. The most objective, accurate reporting possible will make Trump look horrible -- because objective reporting accurately reflects reality, and reality is devastating to Trump's image.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Varmint started this thread?  The Trump thread needs some Varmint.  And Carolina Hustler!!  Oh god, some Carolina Hustler is just what that thread needs.  

 

I went back to his original post, in this thread.  I hope some of you libtards sheeple will pull your head out of the sand (or your wherever) to check those original links.  For example:

 

HOW GHOSTBUSTERS EXPOSED BLATANT MEDIA BIAS

 

Wake up, people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are are crying about Liberal Media Bias (and the liberal bias of life itself) then you are a giant pansy. Do a better job handling/working the media or shut it.

Edited by BigSteelThrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 14, 2016 at 0:19 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

To be objective is to put aside bias and be accurate.

Calling Trump on all of his nonsense is part of being objective.

Calling Hillary on hers is also part of being objective, but pretending that Trump's nonsense and Hillary's nonsense are in any sense roughly equivalent, in volume or in severity, is not accurate. Hinting at such equivalence would itself be a form of bias.

You might think that reporting is biased if it makes Trump look bad, but that's really not true at all. The most objective, accurate reporting possible will make Trump look horrible -- because objective reporting accurately reflects reality, and reality is devastating to Trump's image.

I have no idea why we should be focusing on nonsense.  Who cares.  Like every penny from the Clinton empire is derived from the selling of political assess, political influence or political favor.  A good objective case could be made that Hillary's antics should recieve more focus and attention than Trump's nonsense, especially all this latest groping stuff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2016 at 11:36 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

- I saw this on the front page of the NYT a week ago now - 8/7/16 - but I've thought it merited discussion.

Personally - while I think everything Donald Trump has gotten from the press post winning the nomination has been largely fair and accurate, I found this piece really kind of unbelievably self-consciously pathetic and cloying. It reads like some kind of apologia explaining why professional journalists, pundits or reporters should drop all pretense of ethics or objectivity in reporting on Trump because of some sort of greater or higher calling or danger at stake from his race for the presidency.

If they'd have done their jobs in the first place and displayed an accurate portrayal of Don and vetted him appropriately, he wouldn't be the GOP choice for President.  All the "stuff" surfacing now, should have surfaced a year ago.  They dropped the ball big time and are now scrambling.  Hopefully they learn a lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigSteelThrill said:

If you are are crying about Liberal Media Bias (and the liberal bias of life itself) then you are a giant pansy. Do a better job handling/working the media or shut it.

This is the best you got? A 5 year old reply of "if you don't like it, work it better?" How do you game a system that is all ganged up against you? You can't. I don't expect the left to agree with me, but as MT says earlier on the page, "if we're all being objective". The gaming against Trump is undeniable at this point, especially with more coming out every day. If the solution (along with the unnecessary name calling) you just gave is all you have to offer, then clearly you know this truth as well.

Edited by ShamrockPride
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm pretty much over being defensive about charges of liberal bias in the media. The media damn well better have what appears to be a liberal slant because that's where progress lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ShamrockPride said:

This is the best you got? A 5 year old reply of "if you don't like it, work it better?" How do you game a system that is all ganged up against you? You can't. I don't expect the left to agree with me, but as MT says earlier on the page, "if we're all being objective". The gaming against Trump is undeniable at this point, especially with more coming out every day. If the solution (along with the unnecessary name calling) you just gave is all you have to offer, then clearly you know this truth as well.

Yes. Because we know it already. As stated... life has a liberal bias. So if you just start reporting, with no agenda, its almost always going to take a liberal tilt and not a conservative one.

Edited by BigSteelThrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

I think I'm pretty much over being defensive about charges of liberal bias in the media. The media damn well better have what appears to be a liberal slant because that's where progress lives. 

:lol: You're such a tool. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RBM said:

:lol: You're such a tool. 

A wedge, that is. 

(It's the simplest one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Yes. Because we know it already. As stated... life has a liberal bias. So if you just start reporting, with no agenda, its almost always going to take a liberal tilt and not a conservative one.

Life is liberal so just shut the heck up and deal with it?

I don't even know how to respond to this other than...wow. I hope you didn't spend too much time on that response.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Buzzbait said:

Life is liberal so just shut the heck up and deal with it?

Not so much that... just quit crying.  We all know. Literally, we all know.  Now you are just crying to hear yourself -- you aren't changing a damn thing with the tears. 

I said to work to fix it (be better/get better at it) not to "just deal with it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to look at Venezuela and the Soviet Union and assert that history lurches left. 

It sure doesn't seem to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

It's hard to look at Venezuela and the Soviet Union and assert that history lurches left. 

It sure doesn't seem to.  

Communism (aka totalitarianism) is not 'left', or rather 'progressive'.

Edited by cstu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ShamrockPride said:

This is the best you got? A 5 year old reply of "if you don't like it, work it better?" How do you game a system that is all ganged up against you? You can't. I don't expect the left to agree with me, but as MT says earlier on the page, "if we're all being objective". The gaming against Trump is undeniable at this point, especially with more coming out every day. If the solution (along with the unnecessary name calling) you just gave is all you have to offer, then clearly you know this truth as well.

I would love to know how exactly you think they are doing this.

By putting a video camera on him when he's talking and hit the record button?

99.9% of all the crap Trump has gotten has come directly from his words and actions.

How exactly is that the media's fault?

The other thing people may not realize is, Hillary has been thoroughly vetted for a quarter century now. It's all out there. But being that this is the first time Trump is under this kind of scrutiny, (and the fact that he's a sleezeball) all this stuff is coming to light for the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cstu said:

Communism (aka totalitarianism) is not 'left'.

cstu, tell that to a leftist.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Buzzbait said:

Life is liberal so just shut the heck up and deal with it?

I don't even know how to respond to this other than...wow. I hope you didn't spend too much time on that response.

Sorry, Buzzbait but yes, progress is the state of human nature.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

cstu, tell that to a leftist.  

Fine, I'll tell them they are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Have we officially removed all useful meaning from the word "liberal" at this point? :lol:  

Quote

open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Not so much that... just quit crying.  We all know. Literally, we all know.  Now you are just crying to hear yourself -- you aren't changing a damn thing with the tears. 

I said to work to fix it (be better/get better at it) not to "just deal with it."

Two things here:

Regarding the bold comment...fair enough. I agree that whining about it won't do much but I think some people interpret simply talking about it as whining. Nothing at all wrong with shining a light on it especially when a large population doesn't even recognize that there's any bias to begin with.

"life has a liberal bias" - This was your comment to which I do not agree. That infers that since life is liberal in nature there's nothing you can do about and since there's nothing you can do about just accept it as human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.