Why do Third Hour forums have so many openly right-wing biased news articles?


Recommended Posts

This forum isn't owned by the church.   The members and admins are human beings with differing opinions, and the forum doesn't ban political discussions.  It's true that Latter-day Saints, especially in the US, tend to lean right.  That said, I'm righter than most, and I don't go to any of those links you mention.

 

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

A lot of the members here lean towards the right, and almost all of them will admit it. Therefore, most of the stuff they read online will be right leaning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you consider the issues that concern so many people of faith--especially in the U.S.--it's easy to see how we end up learning conservative: religious liberty, rights of home schoolers, opposition to both socialism and communism, support for the state of Israel, limiting/eliminating abortions, traditional marriage, opposition to same-sex relationships (for church members), etc. There are liberal and Democrat church members, and there are folks on this board who support those views. There are even a few who come here who are not religious, and who support LGBT rights, etc. Still...it's easy to see why many look to more conservative site. BTW, I prefer The Federalist, National Review Online, and Washington Times for my conservative commentary. Real Clear Politics and The Hill offer me varied and centrist perspectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, EmotionalPomegranate said:

I'm genuinely curious why posts on this forum about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (specifically the General Discussion section) seem to mirror things I've seen on biased (or even lying) websites like reddit.com/r/the_donald, https://www.foxnews.com/, or even https://www.breitbart.com/?

Could it be that...leftist sociopolitics are intrinsically hostile to the message of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Hmmm...

giphy.gif

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EmotionalPomegranate said:

I'm genuinely curious why posts on this forum about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (specifically the General Discussion section) seem to mirror things I've seen on biased (or even lying) websites like reddit.com/r/the_donald, https://www.foxnews.com/, or even https://www.breitbart.com/?

It does?  @Vort, @Just_A_Guy, and I were just talking about the SJW nonsense on the articles.

And dude... if you're still saying r/the_donald you must be a TDS liberal (I mean, if it's not obvious enough from your singling out of Fox and Brietbart).  It's TheDonald.win now, bud.

P.S.  username checks out.

 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
5 hours ago, EmotionalPomegranate said:

I'm genuinely curious why posts on this forum about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (specifically the General Discussion section) seem to mirror things I've seen on biased (or even lying) websites like reddit.com/r/the_donald, https://www.foxnews.com/, or even https://www.breitbart.com/?

I often use Fox News links in the forum not because I am conservative, but because people on the forum will actually read them.

Vort will give a smack down to anyone that even thinks about posting links from CNN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man, I am FAR left in my political views.

I believe:

- Men should be able to beat woman just like they fight other men (I am indeed a feminist)

- we should legalize all drugs, it’s our bodies right!?

- Some races are superior to others (But I’m not racist)

- It’s ok to steal as long as you give it to someone you think deserves it.

- You can sleep with whoever you want whenever you want. No shame!

- You can kill any baby that may come from said sex

- we evolved from apes

- in Jesus

... in that order ...

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

I believe:

- Men should be able to beat woman just like they fight other men (I am indeed a feminist)

I am disturbed that you willfully distinguish between so-called "men" and "women", as if there's a difference. For shame! You are a part of the Oppressive Patriarchy®.

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

- Some races are superior to others (But I’m not racist)

There are no superior races! But there are inferior races. You're so unwoke not to know that. You must be white. (No offense intended to albinos, those with vitiglio, or other pigmentally deficient persons.)

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

- It’s ok to steal as long as you give it to someone you think deserves it.

Wrong! It's OK to steal as long as you give to to someone *I* think deserves it.

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

- You can kill any baby that may come from said sex

Wrong! Because it's not a baby! It's just a clump of cells until it reaches the age of seven, or until the mother parent with a vagina and the doctor agree to allow it to live. Didn't you read the talking points?

Check your privilege, you white, bepenised person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, many of the posters here lean FAR right.  I'm more of an independent but many would see my views as extremely liberal here...if that says how far right this forum can be.

Sometimes people confuse political party with what their religion is.  Sometimes they worship political parties more than other things.  And sometimes, it's unconnected and they just simply are conservatives.

In general, Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tend to be more conservative (since the 60s at least, earlier they tended to be democrats ironically) and so having a greater number of Conservatives on this forum parallels the general trend among members in the US today.

I am an independent in general, but most I know would even say I lean somewhat right (conservative) in my ideas (which, once again, is ironic if you realize that I can be seen as somewhat liberal for these forums). 

That a forum that is primarily English and composed of those from the US would reflect the political ideas of the Saints in the US today probably should surprise...no one (though at times I AM surprised at how far right the forum sometimes is).

Edited by JohnsonJones
"Well, may of the" changed to "Well, many of the"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Scott said:

I often use Fox News links in the forum not because I am conservative, but because people on the forum will actually read them.

Vort will give a smack down to anyone that even thinks about posting links from CNN.

I've seen @Vortpost more links to CNN articles than anyone else on this forum.  Usually it's to point out how he disagrees with them, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, EmotionalPomegranate said:

I'm genuinely curious why posts on this forum about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (specifically the General Discussion section) seem to mirror things I've seen on biased (or even lying) websites like reddit.com/r/the_donald, https://www.foxnews.com/, or even https://www.breitbart.com/?

Abortion.

Gay Marriage.

Socialism.

Government limitations on religious freedom.

Adherence to the Constitution.

Vandalizing businesses that don't agree with you.

Are there any left-wing positions that any Christian Church would find in adherence to Christ's teachings? What?  Giving to the poor, you say?  We give to the poor.  The left wants to take from you so that you cannot give to the poor.  They will do it and try to take all the credit for it so that government can be bigger to take away all our rights as well as our money.

Anything else?  Politicians, you say?  True there are many bad politicians everywhere.  They tend to lie all over the place.  What do you want?  For us to sit back and not vote and let leftists vote the OTHER liar into office?  Yeah, that would be better, huh?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Abortion.

Gay Marriage.

Socialism.

Government limitations on religious freedom.

Adherence to the Constitution.

Vandalizing businesses that don't agree with you.

Are there any left-wing positions that any Christian Church would find in adherence to Christ's teachings? What?  Giving to the poor, you say?  We give to the poor.  The left wants to take from you so that you cannot give to the poor.  They will do it and try to take all the credit for it so that government can be bigger to take away all our rights as well as our money.

Anything else?  Politicians, you say?  True there are many bad politicians everywhere.  They tend to lie all over the place.  What do you want?  For us to sit back and not vote and let leftists vote the OTHER liar into office?  Yeah, that would be better, huh?

Those are not left-wing positions.  Those are DEMOCRAT positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Abortion.

Gay Marriage.

Socialism.

Government limitations on religious freedom.

Adherence to the Constitution.

Vandalizing businesses that don't agree with you.

Are there any left-wing positions that any Christian Church would find in adherence to Christ's teachings? What?  Giving to the poor, you say?  We give to the poor.  The left wants to take from you so that you cannot give to the poor.  They will do it and try to take all the credit for it so that government can be bigger to take away all our rights as well as our money.

Anything else?  Politicians, you say?  True there are many bad politicians everywhere.  They tend to lie all over the place.  What do you want?  For us to sit back and not vote and let leftists vote the OTHER liar into office?  Yeah, that would be better, huh?

Sure, helping the poor our and not starving people.

Many conservatives like to claim they do so and do this, but if they REALLY actually did this, there would be no need for welfare, social security, or many of the other social nets.

In fact, if Children just took care of their parents, 90% of the reasons for Social Security would cease to exist.  However, Conservatives (and the rest of the West) don't even take care of their own extended families!

When they say, they take care of the poor, the proof is in the pudding.  If they really did, than the people taking out of social nets would be MUCH lower.  They didn't take care of the poor before it came into being (though they did it FAR more than they do today), and they don't do it today either.  I see some take care of their parents and cousins, but for the most part, no one in the US or the West really actually takes care of their families beyond their immediate children.   Most are in it for themselves.  They let social security take care of their parents who don't have enough, or welfare take care of others of their extended family.

Heck, I've seen a LOT of conservatives kick out their kids when they get to be 18 and those kids end up on Welfare themselves.  Then the parents wonder why the kids are so liberal today against what their parents were.  It's not something that takes a genius to figure out.

So, yes, taking care of the poor is one major area. 

Socialism actually WAS supported by the Church and it's members up until around the 1960s to a degree.  The Church was a Utopian group seen by some to be even FARTHER to the left in regards to socialistic programs in the early 19th century than even groups that were Pro-socialistic. 

Most of the ideals of the Democrat party appealed to a great number of the Church members in the past.  What CHANGED were the chastity morals that the Democrats were party to and relied upon.  In this, they deviated from the norm. 

In regards to morality, the Republicans worry about chastity a tad more than democrats (but not completely.  There's a wing that supports chastity, but there are also Republicans that are just as corrupt as Democrats in these arenas). 

I love the US Constitution, but in reality, the US constitution is NOT the religion of the Church, nor is the gospel based upon the Constitution of the United States of America.  Adherence to or non-adherence to the Constitution really has no bearing on whether one is a good member of the church or not, especially when more members are found outside the US today than inside of it.

Things which the Democrat platforms normally support would be

1.  Equality.  You don't discriminate based on certain ideas or items.  You cannot tell a woman to stay at home, you cannot pay her less for the same work, and you cannot abridge her right to say no (though the West is still working on this).  Minorities and woman have a right to feel secure in their own homes.  They have a right to buy and own property.  They have the right to be treated without discrimination in work, education, and property ownership. 

The church may not go as far as Liberals in many instances, but we DO feel that all people are children of the Lord.  Ideally, we have no rich or poor, nor any that are placed above another and lower than another.  We all serve as his children for him and love each other as ourselves.

2.  The idea that there are indelible rights that should be protected.  That all should be able to have access to healthcare, not just the rich.  That healthcare should be something that is able to be enjoyed equally between all.  That all should have access to education and that there should be a reduction of economic inequality among the classes of people.

Once again, the church may not go as far as Liberals, but there is still the idea of no rich or poor among the members and the children of the Lord.  The ideas of educating the people and a reduction of economic inequality were items that were actually sponsored and pushed forward by Brigham Young LONG before they became in vogue things for modern society.  The Church was at the forefront of a type of public education and trying to help bring inequality down among it's members.

3.  Providing for the disabled, the poor, and the elderly. 

This is a standard idea, if I have to explain why this is something the Church also shares in it's views...that would be...a shame.

4.  Protecting the Earth and it's environments.   They may, once again, go a tad too far, but they feel that we need to take care of the Earth and thus comes in caring for the environment and being concerned about things such as global climate change.

The church has taught that we should be good stewards of the Earth.  That we should not simply abuse it and toss it aside, but to try to care for it as those who have been put in charge of it. 

5.  Promoting LGBT issues, birth control, and the freedom to be immoral.

These are issues that the Church does NOT promote and that go directly against what the Church teaches in some instances.  This is the ground upon which the Democrats lost many of the church members.  However, in regards to the idea of treating all people with respect is an item that the Church has at times come out in support of, even when that idea of how to do so comes from a Democrat committee or group.

The Republican platform on the otherhand, really only conjoins with the Church in a few areas.  One of those areas USED to be being budget conscious, but they seem to have tossed that out the window in the past few years.

Another area is that a group of them DO support chastity, and in general they are against abortion and Gay Marriage (though they tend to ALSO support the idea of letting people be immoral and be unchaste before marriage).

However, they normally have the idea that what they have in this life is due to their OWN hard work rather than the blessings of the Lord, and that those who are less fortunate are such because of their own laziness or stupidity.  The tend to justify a class system, and tend to feel might makes right.  Social welfare should be done away and those that are not able to feed themselves...well...they don't think overly hard on that one because it normally means some people will starve and die (because, as some of the Republicans would say, they deserve it for being lazy or other such things). 

Neither party (Republican or Democrat) really represents the ideas of the church, and BOTH are pretty evil in comparison...in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Sure, helping the poor our and not starving people.

Democrats do not help out the poor. They enslave them. And as for starving them, remember it was the Democrat front-runner (at the time) who extolled the virtues of bread lines.

The Democrat Party is irredeemably corrupt. There may well be good individuals who are Democrats (in fact, I know several), but the Democrat Party is evil. Period.

54 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Many conservatives like to claim they do so and do this, but if they REALLY actually did this, there would be no need for welfare, social security, or many of the other social nets.

You have it backward.

54 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In fact, if Children just took care of their parents, 90% of the reasons for Social Security would cease to exist.  However, Conservatives (and the rest of the West) don't even take care of their own extended families!

This is false. It's the Democrats who don't take care of their families, preferring instead to shuffle their old off to care facilities and murder their babies before they're born.

54 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Socialism actually WAS supported by the Church and it's members up until around the 1960s to a degree.  The Church was a Utopian group seen by some to be even FARTHER to the left in regards to socialistic programs in the early 19th century than even groups that were Pro-socialistic.

You literally have no clue what you're talking about.

54 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Neither party (Republican or Democrat) really represents the ideas of the church, and BOTH are pretty evil in comparison...in my opinion.

Of course. Diet Coke and heroin are both bad. Larceny and torturing people to death are both bad. Let's all go for false equivalence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Sure, helping the poor our and not starving people.

Yeah. I addressed this.

Quote

Many conservatives like to claim they do so and do this, but if they REALLY actually did this, there would be no need for welfare, social security, or many of the other social nets.

Here are several problems with this statement.

1. If we take your position (and I don't) then our ability to support the poor completely needs ENOUGH people helping. Just because there are poor, doesn't mean no one is helping.  That's just plain ignoring the facts.  The "poor" are going to be around 10% of a thriving, free society (as Jesus said, "the poor ye shall always have among you").  To support them completely in a financial manner would require 90% of the people to give about 10% to support the poor.  So, even if 60% of the people were giving 10% to help the poor, then there would still be some that are not taken care of.  It's not that we DON'T.  It's that the requirement to solve the problem using this mindset is virtually impossible.

2. Your underlying philosophy is that unless we give stuff to them, then we're not helping them.  No.  Jesus' method is not to take the man out of the slums.  He takes the slums out of the man.  Then the man takes himself out of the slums.  In my work with the poor, I've seen this play out 1000 times.  Give them money for emergency items only.  Anything else is simply enabling them.  And it is a careful balancing act.  So, believe it or not, we often err on the side of compassion.

3. We don't want them to starve.  So, regardless of your claim that we allow people to starve, we do give food and money and support to the poor who really have nothing.  But that's just never enough for you to notice.  Partially because we don't do it to be seen of men.  And your condemnation of things you know little about is quite arrogant and judgmental.

Quote

In fact, if Children just took care of their parents, 90% of the reasons for Social Security would cease to exist.  However, Conservatives (and the rest of the West) don't even take care of their own extended families!

Yes, we do.  I don't know who you're talking about or who you hang around with.  But all of my extended family takes care of each other.  And all the friends that I have also take care of their families.  In fact, I know of only one person in all that network of individuals who is in a retirement home.  And that woman decided to go there on her own even when she was invited to live with family.  And even in that assisted living home, she still has family come over there every day to take care of things that the attendants don't take care of.

And guess what?  She's the most liberal person I've ever personally known.  And she chose that path because she's also one of the richest people I've ever known.  And she's never given a dime to the poor.  Why?  Because she figures that government will take care of it.

It is when government "takes care of it" that we stop caring about each other.  She's living proof of it.

Quote

They didn't take care of the poor before it came into being (though they did it FAR more than they do today), and they don't do it today either.  

I'm going to ask you to clarify.  Either they didn't do it, or they did it better. 

I'm going to take this in stride and interpret it to mean that there are always people who do something, but never enough to end poverty entirely.  That's true ("the poor ye shall always have among you").  And, yes, they did it better in past generations.  But the cause is where we disagree.

Quote

Heck, I've seen a LOT of conservatives kick out their kids when they get to be 18 and those kids end up on Welfare themselves.  Then the parents wonder why the kids are so liberal today against what their parents were.  It's not something that takes a genius to figure out.

Again, I wonder who you're hanging out with.  Yes, I've heard of people doing this.  But regardless of having an R or a D on their voter card, these are not conservatives. I've only known two examples personally.  One was a very liberal home. The daughter was trying to find someone to live with as soon as she turned 17.  Yeah, she ended up bedding down with a sugar daddy.  Do you really believe this was a person raised with conservative values?

The other did it after the man-child made it pretty clear that he had no intention of ever getting a job.  This was after much forbearance, accommodation, and pleading from the parents.

On the flip side, I've seen what happens when you enable adult children living with you.  That, too, is a cause of poverty.  I've seen it first hand with the people I work with quite often; and it ain't pretty.  If those truly were the only options, I'd pick kicking them out.

Quote

So, yes, taking care of the poor is one major area. 

I agree. The liberals need to help out and get government out of it. Help us take the slum out of the man, so he can take himself out of the slum.

Quote

Socialism actually WAS supported by the Church and it's members up until around the 1960s to a degree.  The Church was a Utopian group seen by some to be even FARTHER to the left in regards to socialistic programs in the early 19th century than even groups that were Pro-socialistic. 

We've had this discussion before. And you're using terminology that doesn't line up with today's vernacular.  There is a HUGE difference between government MANDATED social programs vs. individuals coming together as a group to help on another.   HUGE.  There have been numerous statements by general authorities calling such government programs "Satan's substitutes" for divine principles.  It was compared to "love" vs. "lust".

If after all this time, you don't see the difference, then you seem to be oblivious to the principle of agency.

Quote

Most of the ideals of the Democrat party appealed to a great number of the Church members in the past.  What CHANGED were the chastity morals that the Democrats were party to and relied upon.  In this, they deviated from the norm. 

Yes, I agree that the Democrats of the past weren't so bad.  I even liked Kennedy for a number of reasons.  He made some major mistakes like most presidents.  But for the most part, I liked him.

Today's Democrat platform doesn't have anything that I would vote for.  They "claim" to do an awful lot that would seem to be appealing.  But their actual practice is far from solving any purported problems that they seem to rail against.

Quote

In regards to morality, the Republicans worry about chastity a tad more than democrats (but not completely.  There's a wing that supports chastity, but there are also Republicans that are just as corrupt as Democrats in these arenas). 

My impression on this is that 

1. The Dems who are still supporting old fashioned moral values are being pushed out of the party.
2. Republicans who allow immoral behavior are not "supporting" it.  They are supporting freedom of choice.  While Dems require that you "celebrate" it and condemn Christian morality.
3. Corrupt politicians are on both sides of the isle and both sexes.  And if you don't believe me, just google the word "throuple."

Quote

I love the US Constitution, but in reality, the US constitution is NOT the religion of the Church, nor is the gospel based upon the Constitution of the United States of America.  Adherence to or non-adherence to the Constitution really has no bearing on whether one is a good member of the church or not, especially when more members are found outside the US today than inside of it.

You're conflating several things here.  Separate them and you get a bit closer to truth.

Can you be a "good latter-day saint" and not care much for the Constitution?  Certainly.  No one has argued otherwise. But you're saying we're wrong for thinking something we've never thought.  I'll make the TRUE point a little further down the page.

We believe the Constitution is divinely inspired.  The D&C says so.  It was never intended to be a basis for religious worship.  It was God's ordained method of running earthly governments in the latter days.  It was written in a manner that its principles would only work with a moral and religious people.  It depended on churches to be free to do their jobs without government interference, so that the principles of the Constitution would be sufficient to run an earthly government.

Most conservatives tend to believe similar things, although not because of direct scriptural guidance.  However, they look to statements about the Bible dividing up three branches of government, etc.  No.  Christians in general tend to believe in the principle that God is the author of our freedom to choose.  Christians tend to believe that the Constitution was written to help protect those freedoms.  As we stray from the Constitution, we stray from those protections. And as we stray from those protections, religion in general will be threatened.

Quote

Things which the Democrat platforms normally support would be

1.  Equality.  You don't discriminate based on certain ideas or items.

I don't know of ANY conservatives who believe otherwise.  I don't know of ANY politician in recent memory that has advocated for anything else.

Quote

2.  The idea that there are indelible rights that should be protected.  That all should be able to have access to healthcare, not just the rich.  That healthcare should be something that is able to be enjoyed equally between all.  That all should have access to education and that there should be a reduction of economic inequality among the classes of people.

Once again, the church may not go as far as Liberals, but there is still the idea of no rich or poor among the members and the children of the Lord.  The ideas of educating the people and a reduction of economic inequality were items that were actually sponsored and pushed forward by Brigham Young LONG before they became in vogue things for modern society.  The Church was at the forefront of a type of public education and trying to help bring inequality down among it's members.

I don't know of ANY conservatives who believe otherwise.  I don't know of ANY politician in recent memory that has advocated for anything else.

I believe the problem we have is that when you say "not just the rich" that evokes again the idea that if government doesn't take care of it, then no one will.  FALSE.  It's virtually free to all right now.  MANY simply don't avail themselves of all the aid that is out there.  And when they do, they simply can't make the cut or they just don't have the drive to continue.

Worse, is that they choose fields of study that don't improve the human being at all.  Improving the human being is what education used to be about.  But today's universities simply don't.  You teach at a university or college, don't you?  Think about 100 students being taught by one of those "liberal professors" that you mentioned in another thread.  How many of them are becoming better human beings or coming closer to God because of that instruction?  Unless you're at BYU or a similar themed Christian university, I think you'd have a hard time finding the majority of those 100 students turning to God.

Quote

3.  Providing for the disabled, the poor, and the elderly. 

This is a standard idea, if I have to explain why this is something the Church also shares in it's views...that would be...a shame.

I've already gone into that in depth.  Take the slum out of the man, he takes himself out of the slum.  Take the man out of the slum, he'll just go right back to it.

Quote

4.  Protecting the Earth and it's environments.   They may, once again, go a tad too far, but they feel that we need to take care of the Earth and thus comes in caring for the environment and being concerned about things such as global climate change.

The church has taught that we should be good stewards of the Earth.  That we should not simply abuse it and toss it aside, but to try to care for it as those who have been put in charge of it. 

I don't know of ANY conservatives who believe otherwise. The thing you don't see is that bills that are titled with "feel good labels" that sound all 'green' aren't really doing anything to change the environment for the better.

There are, however, ways that government can actually apply meaningful laws to help protect the environment.  And we have many such things on the books.  And every conservative I know of support them.  If you want to go in depth on that, start a new thread and ask "How do conservatives help the environment."

Quote

5.  Promoting LGBT issues, birth control, and the freedom to be immoral.

These are issues that the Church does NOT promote and that go directly against what the Church teaches in some instances.  This is the ground upon which the Democrats lost many of the church members.  However, in regards to the idea of treating all people with respect is an item that the Church has at times come out in support of, even when that idea of how to do so comes from a Democrat committee or group.

I'm glad we agree on at least one thing without reservation.

Quote

The Republican platform on the otherhand, really only conjoins with the Church in a few areas.  One of those areas USED to be being budget conscious, but they seem to have tossed that out the window in the past few years.

Yes, I believe the majority of Republicans have abandoned the idea of being fiscally conservative.  Only a few still do.  On the other hand, NONE of the Democrats do so

Quote

Neither party (Republican or Democrat) really represents the ideas of the church, and BOTH are pretty evil in comparison...in my opinion.

I'll defer to @Vort's statement on that.  Diet Coke/Heroin.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

Loading...
 Share