Jump to content
bludog

Liberal Resource Archive - Valuable Links and References

Recommended Posts

This thread is meant as a reference for Liberal members to find sources and websites which might be of value. All Liberal members of LIBERALFORUM, not just those who frequent the Liberal Only Room, are invited to add links here and use this Archive as a reference.

 

When adding links:

 

Enter working link.

Provide a short description of the content of the link and any other pertinent comments.

 

========================================================================

 

Thanks to Shintao for inspiring this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entered 4/2/2016

Exhaustive list of problems at the polls and voter fraud, nationwide. Details are available.

 

http://www.historycentral.com/Bio/presidents/F_Roosevelt.html

Entered 4/2/2016

Good bio of FDR and his accomplishments. Contains links to his elections, cabinet, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://votesmart.org

Entered 4/2/2016

Non-partisan site providing info on 40,000 politicians - Bio ... Votes ... Ratings ... Positions ... Speeches .... Funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailykos.com/

Entered 4-4-16

Daily political news

 

https://www.facebook.com/AddictingInfoOrg

Entered 4-4-16

Daily political news

 

http://www.techinsider.io/

Tech Insider

Entered 4-4-16

Mostly tech stuff with some political

 

https://www.facebook.com/ConservativesAreDestroyingOurFuture

Conservative's are destroying our future

Entered 4-4-16

Mostly meme's with some political articles

 

https://www.facebook.com/beingliberal.org

Being Liberal

Entered 4-4-16

Mostly meme's with some political articles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://inthesetimes.com

In These Times

Feature stories with an emphasis on politics, culture and labor & union issues. Left politically. They cover stories most media outlets do not. Surprisingly unknown.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.evilgopbastards.com/

Mostly a large compilation of left wing links, websites and news stories. Good source for other left wing links.

 

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/index.html

An international left wing news site

 

http://www.salon.com/

Left oriented news stories and opinion pieces

 

http://www.rawstory.com/

Mostly current left wing news stories. Ed Schultz radio show clips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think Progress

http://thinkprogress.org/

 

Press Progress

http://www.pressprogress.ca/

 

Broadbent Institute

http://www.broadbentinstitute.ca/

 

Mic

http://m.mic.com/

 

Vox

http://www.vox.com/

 

The Daily Dot

http://www.dailydot.com/

 

Kernel Magazine - by The Daily Dot, but more tech oriented

http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/

 

Fusion

http://fusion.net/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wealth of statistical data supporting progressiveness from Common Dreams. April 2016

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/11/americans-agree-its-corporate-power-thats-our-way

 

 

The links in article

 


83 percent of Americans agree and nearly 60 percent “strongly” agree that “the rules of the economy matter and the top 1 percent have used their influence to shape the rules of the economy to their advantage.”

 

Americans believe that policies enacted since the Great Recession have benefited Wall Street, big corporations and the wealthy, but not poor and middle class people.

 

Three quarters of Americans favor a steep rise in the minimum wage, including a majority of Republicans.

 

By margins of about 2-1, Americans oppose corporate trade deals like the TransPacific Partnership. Americans believe such deals destroy more jobs than they create by a 3-1 margin.

 

Most Americans, including a majority of Republicans, favor breaking up the big banks.

 

Over nine in ten voters agree that it is important to regulate financial services and products to make sure they are fair for consumers, and four-fifths say Wall Street financial companies should be held accountable with tougher rules and enforcement for the practices that caused the financial crisis. By nearly a 3-1 margin, voters want to see more, not less, oversight and regulation of financial companies.

Four out of five voters, including three quarters of Republicans, want to expand Social Security benefits. Note: not just maintain, but expand, Social Security benefits.

 

Americans want to close corporate and other tax loopholes and make the rich pay more in taxes. Two-thirds of Americans believe that corporations pay too little in taxes.

 

By a three-to-one margin, Americans want to close tax loopholes that allow speculators and people who make money from short-term trades to pay less taxes on profits than full time workers pay on their income or wages.

 

 

Across the country, three quarters of voters want to maintain or strengthen environmental standards.

 

They support the administration’s Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a 2-1 margin.

 

Three quarters of Americans, including a majority of Americans, favor stricter limits on smog.

 

 

Nine-in-ten Americans want food containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled; only 6 percent oppose mandatory labeling.

 

More than nine in ten want meat labeled with its country of origin.

 

Eighty-three percent of Americans, including three quarters of Republicans, favor empowering Medicare to negotiate drug prices. In fact, Republican voters say that cutting drug prices is a bigger priority for them than repealing Obamacare.

 

In general, astounding majorities of Americans want to restrain corporate power. Eighty-six percent believe corporations have too much political power.

 

Eight-seven percent of voters agree that we need increased enforcement of laws and regulations, including 89 percent of Democrats, 85 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of Independents.

 

Americans know this, too, and they want far-reaching solutions. “With near unanimity,” reports the New York Times, “the public thinks the country’s campaign finance system needs significant changes.”

 

Nine in ten want to get rid of secret money in elections.

 

More than three quarters want to replace super-rich funding of elections with a system that relies on small donors and matching public funds.

 

As ThinkProgress notes, more Americans believe in witches and ghosts than support Citizens United (no offense to witches intended).

 

There is three-to-one support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://berniecrats.net/

This website provides a complete* listing of individuals who endorse Bernie Sanders and are active candidates for a public office. These are people who will do all they can to support and promote Bernie's progressive plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BENGHAZI RESOURCES: 06/28/2016

 

*********** All information comes from "the source" of Minority Leader Elijah Cummings Democrat Investigative Committee here: *********

 

 

WASHINGTON— Today, the Democratic Members of the Select Committee on Benghazi issued a 339-page report entitled, Honoring Courage, Improving Security, and Fighting the Political Exploitation of a Tragedy. Democrats also released all of the unclassified interview transcripts in their possession so the American people can read them for themselves.

 

“Decades in the future, historians will look back on this investigation as a case study in how not to conduct a credible investigation,” the Members wrote. “They will showcase the proliferation of Republican abuses as a chief example of what happens when politicians are allowed to use unlimited taxpayer dollars—and the formidable power of Congress—to attack their political foes.”

The Democratic report’s overarching conclusion is that the evidence obtained by the Select Committee confirms the core findings already issued by many previous investigations into the attacks in Benghazi. Although the Select Committee obtained additional details that provide context and granularity, these details do not fundamentally alter the previous conclusions.

The report finds:

  • U.S. personnel in Benghazi and Tripoli conducted themselves with extraordinary courage and heroism and at grave personal risk to defend and rescue their fellow Americans.
  • The Defense Department could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks that would have saved the lives of the four brave Americans killed in Benghazi, and although the military’s global posture prevented it from responding more quickly that night, improvements were made years ago.
  • The State Department’s security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.
  • The Intelligence Community’s assessments evolved after the attacks as more information became available, but they were not influenced by political considerations.
  • Administration officials did not make intentionally misleading statements about the attacks, but instead relied on information they were provided at the time under fast-moving circumstances.

The Democratic report also documents the grave abuses Republicans engaged in during this investigation—from A to Z. Republicans excluded Democrats from interviews, concealed exculpatory evidence, withheld interview transcripts, leaked inaccurate information, issued unilateral subpoenas, sent armed Marshals to the home of a cooperative witness, and even conducted political fundraising by exploiting the deaths of four Americans.

“In our opinion,” the Members wrote, “Chairman Gowdy has been conducting this investigation like an overzealous prosecutor desperately trying to land a front-page conviction rather than a neutral judge of facts seeking to improve the security of our diplomatic corps.”

“We are issuing our own report today because, after spending more than two years and $7 million in taxpayer funds in one of the longest and most partisan congressional investigations in history, it is long past time for the Select Committee to conclude its work,” they wrote. “Despite our repeated requests over the last several months, Republicans have refused to provide us with a draft of their report—or even a basic outline—making it impossible for us to provide input and obvious that we are being shut out of the process until the last possible moment.”

The Democratic report makes 12 recommendations. Because the fundamental goal of the Democratic Members has always been to improve the security of our diplomatic corps and Americans serving our country overseas, the report makes nine recommendations to improve security measures, security training, risk management processes, and support for survivors and their families. The report also makes three recommendations for Congress to consider before establishing any future select committees.

Click below to read each section:

The Democratic Members of the Select Committee are Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Linda Sánchez, and Rep. Tammy Duckworth.

 

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/previous-investigations/previous-hearings

 

=========================== Previous Interviews

 

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/previous-investigations/previous-interviews

 

=========================== Press Releases

 

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases

 

=========================== In The News

 

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/news/in-the-news

 

=========================== Past Hearings

 

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/work/hearings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

07/05/2016 From the FBI website. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

 

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
Washington, D.C. July 05, 2016

 

Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

 

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

 

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

 

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

 

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

 

So, first, what we have done:

 

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

 

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

 

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

 

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

 

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

 

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

 

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

 

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

 

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

 

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

 

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

 

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

 

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

 

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

 

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

 

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

 

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

 

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

 

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

 

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

 

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

 

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

 

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

 

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

 

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

 

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shintao, very invaluable posting... for any civic minded person wanting to know.

 

my favorite is this: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/

 

core values and economic truths compared with what is often in the news.

 

And btw, Comey is republican, yet to me first and foremost, and not because he did not send to the justice dept any prescription to prosecute Clinton, for me first and foremost, he is what I want from a leader in the FBI.

The truth/ and nothing but. But let's just say later on, say twenty years down the line we find out that he likes to dress in woman's clothing and --- well, seems to me that would be okay since he is not intent on prosecuting any people like that.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one of the most valuable online resources for liberal minded and progressive persons.

 

Open-mindedness and a willingness to rethink what we believe to be true is a primary quality of a liberal mind.

 

Rethink your personal moral, ethical, social and political dogma.

 

Take Michael Sandel's Harvard University course: Justice

 

It's free. Restart Your Mind.

 

One of the Most Popular Courses in Harvard’s History.

What's the Right Thing To Do?
Is torture ever justified? Would you steal a drug that your child needs to survive? Is it sometimes wrong to tell the truth? How much is one human life worth? Watch the videos to hear Harvard professor Michael Sandel talk about justice, equality, democracy, and citizenship.

 

http://www.justiceharvard.org/watch/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

08/08/2016

is the letter of the 50 GOP National Security Officials. It outlines some of Trump's weaknesses. This is a massive blow.

 

 

STATEMENT BY FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS

 

The undersigned individuals have all served in senior national security
and/or foreign policy positions in Republican Administrations, from
Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. We have worked directly on
national security issues with these Republican Presidents and/or their
principal advisers during wartime and other periods of crisis, through
successes and failures. We know the personal qualities required of a
President of the United States.

None of us will vote for Donald Trump.
From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be
President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he
would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s
national security and well-being.

Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and
experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the
leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and
belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions,
including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent
judiciary.

In addition, Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little
understanding of America’s vital national interests, its complex
diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the democratic
values on which U.S. foreign policy must be based. At the same time,
he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and
friends. Unlike previous Presidents who had limited experience in
foreign affairs, Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating
himself. He continues to display an alarming ignorance of basic facts of
contemporary international politics. Despite his lack of knowledge, Mr.
Trump claims that he understands foreign affairs and “knows more
about ISIS than the generals do.”


Mr. Trump lacks the temperament to be President. In our experience, a
President must be willing to listen to his advisers and department heads;
must encourage consideration of conflicting views; and must
acknowledge errors and learn from them. A President must be
disciplined, control emotions, and act only after reflection and careful
deliberation. A President must maintain cordial relationships with
leaders of countries of different backgrounds and must have their respect
and trust.

In our judgment, Mr. Trump has none of these critical qualities. He is
unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not
encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts
impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our
closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous
qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commanderin-
Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

We understand that many Americans are profoundly frustrated with the
federal government and its inability to solve pressing domestic and
international problems. We also know that many have doubts about
Hillary Clinton, as do many of us. But Donald Trump is not the answer
to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are
convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless
President in American history.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3007589/Nationalsecurityletter.pdf

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.   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...