Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So much vitriol over someone who didn't get to make policy or vote on anything?   

I get that y'all hate Trump - but, how would you expect ANYONE who's his press secretary to act?  Seriously - it was her job to defend the pompous prick, just like a defense attorney has to give his clients the best defense that can be mustered w/out regard to what they personally think of those clients.   

If ya got something besides doing her best as Trump's mouthpiece to complain about?  Bring it out.  IIRC, many of you posting these stupid memes got yourselves all butthurt over Mme Clinton being called "cankles", but you still act like this?  The character attacks are beneath most of ya. 

She lied in order to get Jim Acosta's whitehouse press pass revoked. She didn't have to do that, but she did.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

She lied in order to get Jim Acosta's whitehouse press pass revoked. She didn't have to do that, but she did.

I agree, but Jim A did scratch pretty deep on the asshole card.  I'd be surprised if we don't learn someday that this was a CNN strategy given they only had three others with WH docs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

This is such a bizarre comment.   Doing her best to spread lies and bullshit to please a crooked piece of shit that is full of shit doesn't excuse her.

 I had a recent encounter with a facility where nurses were committing  fraud with the best intention because their boss pressured them and assured the nurses that the problem would be sorted out soon and they should just keep billing the folks for shit that wasn't actually happening rather than admit that the cardiac unit didn't have gear that actually worked. 

I'm going to take your approach and consider both sides, while being concerned, yet optimistic. 

I think that most responding are confusing my comments about the juvenile nature of the collective group of idiotic memes and sophomoric posts w/defense of Mrs Huckabee-Sanders.    

I think that if you seriously adopt my approach? You'll find yourself in a better place.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think that most responding are confusing my comments about the juvenile nature of the collective group of idiotic memes and sophomoric posts w/defense of Mrs Huckabee-Sanders.    

I think that if you seriously adopt my approach? You'll find yourself in a better place.  

I bow to your moral hubris.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Is it hubris to recognize that being considerate is more enjoyable than being hatefully vitriolic?  

Depends on the application.  I for one would not be considerate to her in public.  I also wouldn’t slam the door in her face.  Nothing wrong with blasting her online.  She doesn’t deserve consideration.

other people I would not be considerate to

Members of Westboro Church

John Bolton

Jerry Falwell Jr.

Steven Miller 

Mitch McConnel

POTUS

It is along list populated by ASSHOLES.

I just can’t see both sides like you do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

I think that if you seriously adopt my approach? You'll find yourself in a better place.  

No thanks. Excusing people that were doing bad things just because their boss told them to went out in the mid-1940s for some reason

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Depends on the application.  I for one would not be considerate to her in public.  I also wouldn’t slam the door in her face.  Nothing wrong with blasting her online.  She doesn’t deserve consideration.

other people I would not be considerate to

Members of Westboro Church

John Bolton

Jerry Falwell Jr.

Steven Miller 

Mitch McConnel

POTUS

It is along list populated by ASSHOLES.

I just can’t see both sides like you do.

 

Perhaps we mean different things by consideration - 

I've been in the proximity of the Westboro Baptist Church kooks - don't like them, absolutely hate what they've got to say, and hate even more the venue they chose to express themselves, but, I don't think that my feelings give me justification to be in their faces about it unless they cross a line first.   

Seems to me that way too many people have gotten themselves to the point that any political disagreement warrants the dismissal and denigration of the entire person.   IMHO, that isn't the way we oughta be.  Politics is a shitty way to decide who to like or not.   One of my best riding/fishing/music buddies taught school with my wife,  is gay and a flaming liberal - we are almost completely at odds in our political priorities, but, that doesn't prevent him from being a helluva good friend.   If we let politics dictate whether we got along?   We'd both be missing out.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some empathy for Sean Spicer.  He clearly wrestled with his conscience about catapulting the propaganda, until he could no longer do it.  Ms. Huck, on the other hand, had no moral dilemma.  She was a caricature, plain and simple.  A free press is among our most important assets and she had nothing but disdain for it. That wasn't a matter of "she can't help that," she chose to do it. I don't give a damn about her eyes, hair, weight, etc.  I give a damn that she's just a nasty disdainful lying cunt.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Seems to me that way too many people have gotten themselves to the point that any political disagreement warrants the dismissal and denigration of the entire person.

 

are you saying this is a new fad? because toxic tribalism is anything but new (and starts at the top) and is one of the leading causes of the failure our democracy

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

are you saying this is a new fad? because toxic tribalism is anything but new (and starts at the top) and is one of the leading causes of the failure our democracy

I don't at all think that the phenomenon itself is new.   In the past 15-20 years?  It's either me noticing it more, or the fact that the level of vitriol and hate has increased, but it certainly seems that more people are willing to use a political position as a reason to personally demonize everyone who disagrees on that point.  New or not?  I'm not liking that very much. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Perhaps we mean different things by consideration - 

I've been in the proximity of the Westboro Baptist Church kooks - don't like them, absolutely hate what they've got to say, and hate even more the venue they chose to express themselves, but, I don't think that my feelings give me justification to be in their faces about it unless they cross a line first.   

Seems to me that way too many people have gotten themselves to the point that any political disagreement warrants the dismissal and denigration of the entire person.   IMHO, that isn't the way we oughta be.  Politics is a shitty way to decide who to like or not.   One of my best riding/fishing/music buddies taught school with my wife,  is gay and a flaming liberal - we are almost completely at odds in our political priorities, but, that doesn't prevent him from being a helluva good friend.   If we let politics dictate whether we got along?   We'd both be missing out.  

Don’t disagree with you there my best friend of 35 years voted for Trump he’s a smart guy advanced degrees accomplished sailor/windsurfer.  He just hated Hillary with a passion.  I think he’s embarrassed by Trump but he’s keeping up a good front.  We touch on Trump a little bit long enough to needle each other and then move on. We’re considerate because we’re friends and he’s a good person.

That different than the people I mentioned.  They are actively doing shitty things or helping people do shitty things  and are not good people rather they are ASSHOLES.  They deserve no consideration at least not from me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Perhaps we mean different things by consideration - 

I've been in the proximity of the Westboro Baptist Church kooks - don't like them, absolutely hate what they've got to say, and hate even more the venue they chose to express themselves, but, I don't think that my feelings give me justification to be in their faces about it unless they cross a line first.   

Seems to me that way too many people have gotten themselves to the point that any political disagreement warrants the dismissal and denigration of the entire person.   IMHO, that isn't the way we oughta be.  Politics is a shitty way to decide who to like or not.   One of my best riding/fishing/music buddies taught school with my wife,  is gay and a flaming liberal - we are almost completely at odds in our political priorities, but, that doesn't prevent him from being a helluva good friend.   If we let politics dictate whether we got along?   We'd both be missing out.  

I think you're missing something in your hubris:

 

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't at all think that the phenomenon itself is new.   In the past 15-20 years?  It's either me noticing it more, or the fact that the level of vitriol and hate has increased, but it certainly seems that more people are willing to use a political position as a reason to personally demonize everyone who disagrees on that point.  New or not?  I'm not liking that very much. 

I think what you're seeing is a legit pushback against the hate from the right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

I think you're missing something in your hubris:

 

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke
 

Do you think that posting stupid-assed memes on a sailing website is doing something?  Do you think that I advocate not addressing problems when I suggest that we need to be more considerate?  Really?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Do you think that posting stupid-assed memes on a sailing website is doing something?  Do you think that I advocate not addressing problems when I suggest that we need to be more considerate?  Really?? 

I think the memes, from "both sides" are juvenile.

Feel better?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Do you think that posting stupid-assed memes on a sailing website is doing something?  Do you think that I advocate not addressing problems when I suggest that we need to be more considerate?  Really?? 

I thought you still worked for the gov't or maybe a contractor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

help me understand your point, 'cause I'm not getting it. 

Just that some of your comments and thoughts have led me to that belief.  And if true, you must have some low-level job where they don't assess your internet use each day.  Shit man, put in 8hrs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakenews said:

Depends on the application.  I for one would not be considerate to her in public.  I also wouldn’t slam the door in her face.  Nothing wrong with blasting her online.  She doesn’t deserve consideration.

other people I would not be considerate to

Members of Westboro Church

John Bolton

Jerry Falwell Jr.

Steven Miller 

Mitch McConnel

POTUS

It is along list populated by ASSHOLES.

I just can’t see both sides like you do.

Yes you can - like most decent people you recognize hateful, socially destructive scum when you see them.

And you shun them.

It's not a character flaw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 I don't think that my feelings give me justification to be in their faces about it unless they cross a line first.  

That's the whole point here - they crossed that line long ago.

Just like Trump and his gang - they LIVE far beyond that line.

Just where is that "line" for you?

Examples?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you people crack me up..newsflash but neither of your teams hold any form of moral superiority in this dog pile.

 

when BOTH SIDES want to come down off of their high horse, things may change. until then, have fun creating virtual cte by bashing your skulls against the keyboard for the sake of winning the game for your team

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

That's the whole point here - they crossed that line long ago.

Just like Trump and his gang - they LIVE far beyond that line.

Just where is that "line" for you?

Examples?

 

Taking the case of the WBC kooks:   I was in a PGR detail, protecting a deceased soldier's family from having to deal with the kooks.   My being there and creating a physical barrier to prevent the kooks from being able to directly harass the family was my line.   I don't think that doing anything to physically accost the kooks would be warranted unless the kooks did something else, like to try to cross OUR line and disturb the mourners.    

As it pertains to the politics?   I think that it's absolutely appropriate to express disagreement and anger - but, that projecting that disagreement and anger onto every person who's ever disagreed with you about anything isn't appropriate.  I also think that the stupid memes ( no matter WHERE they're coming from ) that try to use some physical characteristic as a justification for an intellectual disagreement are a lazy, juvenile way to express one's self.  You *never* heard me say much nice about Mme Clinton - but, you never heard me attack her for anything beyond a position she held, you never heard me call her names, or castigate everyone who supported her just because they did.    There are several people in here that I think behave abominably - yet, when they make a valid observation, do you see me trying to diminish them in that instance due to their previous behavior?  (well, maybe a few times - I get pissed off every once in a while too) 

That's the difference - that's the line as I see it.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Taking the case of the WBC kooks:   I was in a PGR detail, protecting a deceased soldier's family from having to deal with the kooks.   My being there and creating a physical barrier to prevent the kooks from being able to directly harass the family was my line.   I don't think that doing anything to physically accost the kooks would be warranted unless the kooks did something else, like to try to cross OUR line and disturb the mourners.    

As it pertains to the politics?   I think that it's absolutely appropriate to express disagreement and anger - but, that projecting that disagreement and anger onto every person who's ever disagreed with you about anything isn't appropriate.  I also think that the stupid memes ( no matter WHERE they're coming from ) that try to use some physical characteristic as a justification for an intellectual disagreement are a lazy, juvenile way to express one's self.  You *never* heard me say much nice about Mme Clinton - but, you never heard me attack her for anything beyond a position she held, you never heard me call her names, or castigate everyone who supported her just because they did.    There are several people in here that I think behave abominably - yet, when they make a valid observation, do you see me trying to diminish them in that instance due to their previous behavior?  (well, maybe a few times - I get pissed off every once in a while too) 

That's the difference - that's the line as I see it.   

How about you get the fuck off your high horse.  I have seen you go after an SA’ers daughter because you didn’t agree with what he was saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
1
28 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I work hard for my memes. I suffer for them and take great pains  to provide a quality viewing experience that is rarely superficial and usually has a message. Okay, sometimes it does. 

 

FF6C40DA-D8F3-40FD-8F94-9F8F69DF2DF0.jpeg

 

Holy Hell - did you all know The Matrix was a documentary? That's Agent Smith!

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, aA said:

you people crack me up..newsflash but neither of your teams hold any form of moral superiority in this dog pile.

 

when BOTH SIDES want to come down off of their high horse, things may change. until then, have fun creating virtual cte by bashing your skulls against the keyboard for the sake of winning the game for your team

"There were fine people on both sides."

- Donald J. Trump

 

 

No, one side has Nazis. Don't you dare "both sides" us with that shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

"There were fine people on both sides."

- Donald J. Trump

 

 

No, one side has Nazis. Don't you dare "both sides" us with that shit.

 

point duly noted. however neither side has complete innocence in the devolution of politics, which was my point. does that rewording make you feel better?

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

Bump,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, any news on a replacement?

They want to talk to Dog, but he refuses to fly to DC on his own dime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 11:56 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't at all think that the phenomenon itself is new.   In the past 15-20 years?  It's either me noticing it more, or the fact that the level of vitriol and hate has increased, but it certainly seems that more people are willing to use a political position as a reason to personally demonize everyone who disagrees on that point. 

The modern iteration of all of it started with the Tea Party.  They adopted a new tone based on their beliefs, which gave them a moral basis to never compromise on anything.  It really oughtta be called the Chist Sharia Law movement, because that's what they most resemble.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The modern iteration of all of it started with the Tea Party.  They adopted a new tone based on their beliefs, which gave them a moral basis to never compromise on anything.  It really oughtta be called the Chist Sharia Law movement, because that's what they most resemble.

Actually, I think the modern iteration started with Gingrich.

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

Actually, I think the modern iteration started with Gingrich.

The Christ Sharia bunch stopped debating and compromising because Jesus, but yeah Gingrich laid much of the infrastructure down for "Fight everything and never admit defeat."

Link to post
Share on other sites

source:

Anonymous tales of sex, vengeance, laziness, and criminal behavior are swirling in Washington as President Trump considers who to name his next White House press secretary.

The spread of negative stories about contenders, many provably false, others unprovable, demonstrates the risk of Trump taking his time to make a selection, leaving his candidates exposed to attacks from rivals. A fear of some is that Trump himself could hear a rumor and believe it without checking whether it was true.

One experienced government spokesperson was said to exhibit a poor work ethic and incompetence, except when news cameras appeared. Another was said to have committed misconduct potentially amounting to a crime. One, who the Washington Examiner will not identify, was said to have slept with Secret Service agents.

Among the people believed to have been considered are deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley, former State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, and recently departed Treasury Department spokesman Tony Sayegh. Former Fox New host Eric Bolling, CNN contributor and potential first Hispanic press secretary Steve Cortes, State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus, and White House director of strategic communications Mercedes Schlapp have also been mentioned.

Stephanie Grisham, 42, the spokeswoman for first lady Melania Trump and the heavy favorite, has found herself a piñata after Sarah Sanders said last Thursday she's leaving this month.

Stories mounted as Grisham’s selection began to look likely this week, though it’s unclear if they are part of an organized campaign to derail her.

One source stood by their story about a looming clash, but amid broad pushback from nearly a dozen people who know both White House officials, a second source familiar with internal West Wing politics recanted their account of longstanding enmity.

The source who recanted said they actually support Grisham, who they view as tough and loyal to Trump, and learned they unwittingly repeated rumors from a Grisham foe who sought to make her candidacy appear controversial.

Although many former White House aides said that Grisham and the colleague aren’t close friends, they were unaware of them disliking each other, and doubtful of an alleged intention to seek her termination.

“Stephanie is not the type who would go in and start firing people. That's not how she's wired. I think it's dramatically overblown,” said one former White House official. Others noted Grisham technically wouldn’t have the authority to order the termination.

Other stories have circulated among the fractious community of former White House and Trump campaign aides, some seeming to undermine Grisham’s path to a coronation.

One critic close to the White House incorrectly recalled that Grisham was banished to the East Wing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer in 2017, after a short stint in the main press office.

Many observers, meanwhile, said the first lady may not want to part with her aide, which one person close to the selection process said is untrue.

The first lady “is very supportive of people growing professionally. She would never say, 'I’m keeping Stephanie',” a former White House official said.

Although many stories circulated about Grisham, other contenders also were tarred with specific stories that would embarrass them and if accurate derail their candidacy. Others discussed as contenders were anonymously jeered as embarrassing themselves with blatant campaigning for the gig.

It’s unclear when Trump will name a selection, or if he feels a particular sense of urgency. Sanders’s short exit time frame may accelerate a choice, though it’s possible Trump would allow Gidley to serve in an acting capacity.

A four-person short list in the immediate aftermath of Sanders’ resignation included Grisham, Gidley, Nauert, and Sayegh, but Nauert subsequently bowed out. Trump said he wants to pick a woman, according to several sources.

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

Actually, I think the modern iteration started with Gingrich.

yeah, I was in DC during that time frame, and that was about the time I left The Party. Once we start seeing each other as the enemy, there is not really anyplace left to go....  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

source:

Anonymous tales of sex, vengeance, laziness, and criminal behavior are swirling in Washington as President Trump considers who to name his next White House press secretary.

The spread of negative stories about contenders, many provably false, others unprovable, demonstrates the risk of Trump taking his time to make a selection, leaving his candidates exposed to attacks from rivals. A fear of some is that Trump himself could hear a rumor and believe it without checking whether it was true.

One experienced government spokesperson was said to exhibit a poor work ethic and incompetence, except when news cameras appeared. Another was said to have committed misconduct potentially amounting to a crime. One, who the Washington Examiner will not identify, was said to have slept with Secret Service agents.

Among the people believed to have been considered are deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley, former State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, and recently departed Treasury Department spokesman Tony Sayegh. Former Fox New host Eric Bolling, CNN contributor and potential first Hispanic press secretary Steve Cortes, State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus, and White House director of strategic communications Mercedes Schlapp have also been mentioned.

Stephanie Grisham, 42, the spokeswoman for first lady Melania Trump and the heavy favorite, has found herself a piñata after Sarah Sanders said last Thursday she's leaving this month.

Stories mounted as Grisham’s selection began to look likely this week, though it’s unclear if they are part of an organized campaign to derail her.

In one account, Grisham was said to strongly dislike a prominent West Wing communications aide. Grisham, a trusted Trump campaign veteran, was said to have plans to fire the other Trump surrogate, whom she allegedly suspected of self-serving leaks.

One source stood by their story about a looming clash, but amid broad pushback from nearly a dozen people who know both White House officials, a second source familiar with internal West Wing politics recanted their account of longstanding enmity.

The source who recanted said they actually support Grisham, who they view as tough and loyal to Trump, and learned they unwittingly repeated rumors from a Grisham foe who sought to make her candidacy appear controversial.

Although many former White House aides said that Grisham and the colleague aren’t close friends, they were unaware of them disliking each other, and doubtful of an alleged intention to seek her termination.

“Stephanie is not the type who would go in and start firing people. That's not how she's wired. I think it's dramatically overblown,” said one former White House official. Others noted Grisham technically wouldn’t have the authority to order the termination.

Other stories have circulated among the fractious community of former White House and Trump campaign aides, some seeming to undermine Grisham’s path to a coronation.

One critic close to the White House incorrectly recalled that Grisham was banished to the East Wing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer in 2017, after a short stint in the main press office.

Many observers, meanwhile, said the first lady may not want to part with her aide, which one person close to the selection process said is untrue.

The first lady “is very supportive of people growing professionally. She would never say, 'I’m keeping Stephanie',” a former White House official said.

Although many stories circulated about Grisham, other contenders also were tarred with specific stories that would embarrass them and if accurate derail their candidacy. Others discussed as contenders were anonymously jeered as embarrassing themselves with blatant campaigning for the gig.

It’s unclear when Trump will name a selection, or if he feels a particular sense of urgency. Sanders’s short exit time frame may accelerate a choice, though it’s possible Trump would allow Gidley to serve in an acting capacity.

A four-person short list in the immediate aftermath of Sanders’ resignation included Grisham, Gidley, Nauert, and Sayegh, but Nauert subsequently bowed out. Trump said he wants to pick a woman, according to several sources.

 
 
 

I think Mercedes Schlapp would be fun.  She's a top notch bullshitter, and that is no job for rank amateurs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gingrich got booted by his own caucus for ethics violations in favor of the pederast Hastert who also made a fortune from land deals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-dennis-hastert-made-a-fortune-in-land-deals/2015/05/29/680f357a-0628-11e5-bc72-f3e16bf50bb6_story.html

This left a vacuum after the Republicans lost the House+Senate+Presidency to be filled by astroturf funding of the Tea Party coming from Tom's boys, the Koch brothers. Were they Christian? Absolutely, if that's what you wanted to hear and they were especially opposed to that damned Muslim in the WH. Were they small government? Certainly, the Contract With America didn't go far enough, if that's what you wanted to hear. But mostly they were just a right wing flag of convenience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Stephanie Grisham: Melania Trump's top aide picked as press secretary

Quote

A top aide to Melania Trump will be the next White House press secretary and communications director, the first lady has announced on Twitter.

Stephanie Grisham, who serves as the first lady's deputy chief of staff and communications director, will fill the vacancy left by Sarah Sanders. 

"I can think of no better person to serve the Administration & our country," Mrs Trump wrote on Twitter.

So Melania is now announcing the new appointees in the White House?  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48763328

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/20/2019 at 4:27 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So much vitriol over someone who didn't get to make policy or vote on anything?   

I get that y'all hate Trump - but, how would you expect ANYONE who's his press secretary to act?  Seriously - it was her job to defend the pompous prick, just like a defense attorney has to give his clients the best defense that can be mustered w/out regard to what they personally think of those clients.   

Did she have to take the job? Unlike a lawyer who gets to defend and or prosecute a variety of both the innoccent, the guilty and the MMMaybe, SHS chose to take a job that she knew would require her to lie, obfuscate and deceive on a daily basis, she chose to more or less   silence the press office and limit to the extreme the information the public has a right to hear. She's no better than any dictators propaganda chief.

If ya got something besides doing her best as Trump's mouthpiece to complain about?  Bring it out.  IIRC, many of you posting these stupid memes got yourselves all butthurt over Mme Clinton being called "cankles", but you still act like this?  The personal appearance attacks are beneath most of ya. 

This I agree with

 

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

×
×
  • Create New...