Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, NoName said:

Honestly, yeah. Elon Musk: Generic Edgelord

IMG_0461.thumb.jpeg.fb0ee01ff01eb5bfdf8180ad843e4f43.jpeg

I'm not even joking, there's rumors going around originating from Grimes that Elon has a botched penis enlargement. Which would definitely explain a lot of his rage at the world and society.

image.png.09b3356ccf863407920101292bf03482.png

This is 100% pure unsubstantiated rumor, but I'll be goddamned if it doesn't make everything make sense with him

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 6
Posted

Just to really put a cherry on top, elon's personal security detail has been deputized by the US Marshalls now. If you make him mad on twitter, he can legitimately dispatch armed federal agents on you.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/20/politics/elon-musk-private-security-deputized-marshals-service/index.html

The US Marshals Service has deputized members of Elon Musk’s private security detail, giving them certain rights and protections of federal law enforcement agents, three law enforcement officials familiar with the matter told CNN.

It was not immediately clear how many members of Musk’s security team were made special deputies.

Musk, the tech billionaire and ally of President Donald Trump, does not currently have a US Secret Service detail – meaning members of his personal security detail were limited in what they could do in Washington, DC.

Now that members have been deputized, they have more rights and could be authorized to carry weapons on federal grounds. It also means that if something went awry with the detail, the Marshals Service could be held legally liable, one law enforcement source said.

  • Rage+1 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Just to really put a cherry on top, elon's personal security detail has been deputized by the US Marshalls now. If you make him mad on twitter, he can legitimately dispatch armed federal agents on you.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/20/politics/elon-musk-private-security-deputized-marshals-service/index.html

The US Marshals Service has deputized members of Elon Musk’s private security detail, giving them certain rights and protections of federal law enforcement agents, three law enforcement officials familiar with the matter told CNN.

It was not immediately clear how many members of Musk’s security team were made special deputies.

Musk, the tech billionaire and ally of President Donald Trump, does not currently have a US Secret Service detail – meaning members of his personal security detail were limited in what they could do in Washington, DC.

Now that members have been deputized, they have more rights and could be authorized to carry weapons on federal grounds. It also means that if something went awry with the detail, the Marshals Service could be held legally liable, one law enforcement source said.

This is literally how the SS began.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, anyone and everyone who has had a dissenting post deleted/removed from Twitter should join together and file a Section 1983 suit against Elon for depriving them of their civil rights.  Because the facts make it a pretty damned solid (and important) case.

1.  Elon is a powerful, senior employee and officer of the US Government.  Trump has admitted so, publicly.  Further, Elon's public statements and tweets on the matter make it clear that he is.

2.  That powerful, senior officer of the US Government controls a major site for the dissemination and public discussion of topics that include the operation of the US Government, specifically including the functions of that particular officer of the US Government.

3.  That powerful, senior officer of the US Government actually USES that site for making statements directly connected to and relevant to his role and actions as a US Government official.

4.  That powerful, senior officer of the US Government suppresses/drowns out dissenting speech by a) actively deleting/hiding dissenting posts and comments, b) creating/directing the creation of an algorithm that performs the same function.

5.  Government suppression of speech, particularly on matters of public import and interest, is a plain violation of the First Amendment rights of the speakers.

 

TLDR: Because Musk is an officer of the government and does not just use but CONTROLS Twitter in connection with and in furtherance of the performance of his duties as a government official, Twitter is -- for First Amendment purposes -- an arm of the US Government.  Thus, it cannot suppress or favor any speech based on its content.  Doing so violates the First Amendment, and Elon (in his capacity as the owner and controller of Twitter) should be enjoined from doing so.

It is a good lawsuit.  It is a VERY good lawsuit.  It should be brought posthaste, seeking emergency injunctive relief, because the harm is real, ongoing, and there is no adequate remedy at law if it is allowed to continue.

Wasn't there a really long bernard thread about how federal agents can't be sued even if you cooperated with them

Edited by chainsaw
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Wasn't there a really long bernard thread about how federal agents can't be sued even if you cooperated with them

So.... I have no idea what that sentence means.  Of course federal agents can be sued - there is "qualified immunity" which can shield them from having to pay damages for past unconstitutional conduct if there was not "clearly established law" telling them their actions were unconstitutional (the 5th circuit LOVES that defense when it comes to cops beating the fuck out of a minority, they don't like it at all when it's a local official pursuing a "liberal" policy).  But that really has no bearing on whether you can get an injunction against further unconstitutional action.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Wasn't there a really long bernard thread about how federal agents can't be sued even if you cooperated with them

IMG_2066.gif.81686245fc34934fae091af1655eeab8.gif

You can sue anyone for anything. Whether you recover is a separate matter than whether you can sue somebody.    Now, the moment of threat doctrine says that you as a cop can kill anyone for almost any reason if you say they are a threat to you or others in your .   Scotus is actually writing an opinion as I type about whether the moment of threat doctrine will still be applicable.  

Of course it will.

oops. did not see brisket’s response before I vomited my answer.

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

So.... I have no idea what that sentence means.  Of course federal agents can be sued - there is "qualified immunity" which can shield them from having to pay damages for past unconstitutional conduct if there was not "clearly established law" telling them their actions were unconstitutional (the 5th circuit LOVES that defense when it comes to cops beating the fuck out of a minority, they don't like it at all when it's a local official pursuing a "liberal" policy).  But that really has no bearing on whether you can get an injunction against further unconstitutional action.

I think it was on the old site. One of the things I remember was that state employees (like that hag who was refusing to issue gay marriage licenses) can be sued for violating civil rights but federal agents basically can't. Qualified immunity was the main subject of the thread of course, though.

Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

I think it was on the old site. One of the things I remember was that state employees (like that hag who was refusing to issue gay marriage licenses) can be sued for violating civil rights but federal agents basically can't. Qualified immunity was the main subject of the thread of course, though.

Yeah, no....federal officers can be sued.  It's technically NOT under Section 1983 -- it's called a "Bivens claim," which is quite similar.  Sorry, I was sloppy there in my citation.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Is it just me, or have spam/phishing texts increased about 10X since the DOGE kids got access to government IT systems? Seems like the last two weeks I’m getting 5-10 a day when I used to get a couple a week. Either that or we’re going to hear about a big hack soon. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

I'm not even joking, there's rumors going around originating from Grimes that Elon has a botched penis enlargement. Which would definitely explain a lot of his rage at the world and society.

image.png.09b3356ccf863407920101292bf03482.png

This is 100% pure unsubstantiated rumor, but I'll be goddamned if it doesn't make everything make sense with him

you know... he's such a fucking snowflake weirdo that if this story gains enough traction i bet he'd go so far as to whip it out somewhere for inspection 😆

Posted
7 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

we’re going to hear about a big hack soon.

There has been a small but vocal community of people who think the 2024 election was actually rigged. Haven't dug too much into it because it don't make much of a shit at this point, but you could be onto something.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
You are conflating auto-pilot data with FSD data.  They are different.  I stated that there have been two confirmed fatalities associated with FSD in over 2.5 billion miles driven by FSD vehicles.  That's all I said.  Nothing more, nothing less. 
image.png.166e26280e97c842c905608fd4082f39.png

I recently heard that Tesla only counts accidents in Teslas where the airbag deploys as a Tesla accident, but they count that against any other car where regardless of airbag deployment, so they can fudge the numbers.


In 2023 there is a Forbes article about Tesla having the highest rates of accident, 23.5 per 1000 drivers, and since then their numbers have gone up to over 26/1000 drivers.

No one gives a shit if they were harmed by FSD or Autopilot modes.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

There has been a small but vocal community of people who think the 2024 election was actually rigged. Haven't dug too much into it because it don't make much of a shit at this point, but you could be onto something.

I've been on record here since 2020 that if you apply the "every accusation is a confession" rule, their callout of specific voting machines after the 2020 election was a tell. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, Pescado_Rojo said:

I've been on record here since 2020 that if you apply the "every accusation is a confession" rule, their callout of specific voting machines after the 2020 election was a tell. 

I haven't seen the evidence for 2024, but I think they are not above trying to steal an election. After all they even tried a violent coup.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I haven't seen the evidence for 2024, but I think they are not above trying to steal an election. After all they even tried a violent coup.

One claim is an outrageous number of "bullet ballots", which are ballots with only one vote cast (POTUS).  I haven't read anything that seems terribly grounded in provable data.

Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

depriving them of their civil rights

We still have those?

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

5.  Government suppression of speech, particularly on matters of public import and interest, is a plain violation of the First Amendment rights of the speakers.

Cracking Up Lol GIF by HULU

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, no....federal officers can be sued.  It's technically NOT under Section 1983 -- it's called a "Bivens claim," which is quite similar.  Sorry, I was sloppy there in my citation.

I'm not an attorney, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but my understanding is that a Biven's claim is an action against a Federal agent and a Section 1983 claim is against a State or Local official 

I did send Leon a message on Twitter asking about the botched penile implant, but he hasn't responded.

Edited by Ghost of NMAS
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 5
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Elon Musk is the greatest threat the Republic has faced since the Civil War.  He is a clear and present existential threat to the continued operation of the United States as an actual democratic functioning Republic, as opposed to a nakedly wholly owned subsidiary of evil oligarchs.

There is zero hyperbole in my statement above.  For real.

Absolutely he is. And everyone excusing him should go fuck themselves. He should be in jail, not taking pressers from the White House.

Edited by PenelopeWitherspoon
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

https://newrepublic.com/article/166725/thomas-bivens-boule-egbert-decision

Quote

What are Bivens claims? Imagine that you’re sitting at home when the doorbell rings. A local police officer comes in, ransacks your home without a search warrant, and arrests you. You get out of jail and go home. While you’re trying to clean up the place, the doorbell rings again. This time an FBI agent comes in, ransacks your home again without a search warrant, and arrests you for something else. After you get out of jail again, you might want to sue each of them for violating your Fourth Amendment rights and get some sort of damages for your troubles.

For your local cop, you can do that under Section 1983, a provision of a Reconstruction-era federal civil rights law. This is the basis for most lawsuits that you read about when someone accuses a state or local official of violating a constitutional right. (Section 1983 has its own problems that we’ll get into later.) But what about the FBI agent? Federal officials aren’t covered by Section 1983, and while Congress has created some causes of action (a legal term that means “basis to sue someone”) in some circumstances, it hasn’t created a similarly broad mechanism to sue federal civil servants for constitutional violations.

 

The Supreme Court filled this void to some degree in the 1971 case Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents. In that case, a man named Webster Bivens sued six members of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics for searching his home without a warrant and arresting him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The agents tried to get the lawsuit thrown out by arguing that Congress had not created a cause of action to justify it. In a 6–3 ruling led by the liberal justices at the time, the Supreme Court ruled that there was an implicit cause of action in the Fourth Amendment and that Americans could accordingly seek damages under it.

 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, chainsaw said:

There has been a small but vocal community of people who think the 2024 election was actually rigged. Haven't dug too much into it because it don't make much of a shit at this point, but you could be onto something.

 

2 hours ago, chainsaw said:

I haven't seen the evidence for 2024, but I think they are not above trying to steal an election. After all they even tried a violent coup.

 

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

One claim is an outrageous number of "bullet ballots", which are ballots with only one vote cast (POTUS).  I haven't read anything that seems terribly grounded in provable data.

I know a few people who are trafficking in these ideas. I'll need to go back and find the source material but the basis of their argument is that the Stop the Steal people illegally got their hands on Dominion voting machines back in 2021 (the Colorado chick went to prison for allowing it). They had plenty of time to reverse engineer them. While the machines are not physically connected to the internet during the election, there is nothing stopping them from having had software installed at some point that allows Starlink to access them (or so this theory says). Starlink had massive rollouts in some crucial counties in the seven swing states. That gets us to the bullet ballots portion of this.

This same piece that I'm going to go look for said Trump won all seven swing states -- the first time any POTUS candidate has done that in four decades. It goes on to say the chances of winning all seven of those states and go ever-so-slightly above the threshold that avoids and automatic hand recount WHILE not surpassing 50% of the popular vote nationwide was on the order of 35 billion to one. (That seems sky high to me but I'm a C-level math student.) This is where the bullet ballots come in -- some key counties in these swing states had an extremely inordinate amount of bullet ballots, which are where the voter votes for POTUS and nothing else. Usually, the number is less than 1% and they were seeing 5-9% in some counties. The final piece to their puzzle was Musk's creating voter rolls with his $1M daily lottery giveaway to get people registered to vote.

Not saying I believe any of the above but it's certainly more evidence than I ever saw Sidney Powell or Mike Lindell present for the 2020 election.

EDIT: here's the link to the piece I read. It's from way back in late November: https://www.planetcritical.com/p/cyber-security-experts-warn-election-hacked

 

Edited by C-Man
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, C-Man said:

 

 

I know a few people who are trafficking in these ideas. I'll need to go back and find the source material but the basis of their argument is that the Stop the Steal people illegally got their hands on Dominion voting machines back in 2021 (the Colorado chick went to prison for allowing it). They had plenty of time to reverse engineer them. While the machines are not physically connected to the internet during the election, there is nothing stopping them from having had software installed at some point that allows Starlink to access them (or so this theory says). Starlink had massive rollouts in some crucial counties in the seven swing states. That gets us to the bullet ballots portion of this.

This same piece that I'm going to go look for said Trump won all seven swing states -- the first time any POTUS candidate has done that in four decades. It goes on to say the chances of winning all seven of those states and go ever-so-slightly above the threshold that avoids and automatic hand recount WHILE not surpassing 50% of the popular vote nationwide was on the order of 35 billion to one. (That seems sky high to me but I'm a C-level math student.) This is where the bullet ballots come in -- some key counties in these swing states had an extremely inordinate amount of bullet ballots, which are where the voter votes for POTUS and nothing else. Usually, the number is less than 1% and they were seeing 5-9% in some counties. The final piece to their puzzle was Musk's creating voter rolls with his $1M daily lottery giveaway to get people registered to vote.

Not saying I believe any of the above but it's certainly more evidence than I ever saw Sidney Powell or Mike Lindell present for the 2020 election.

 

The first whiff of it I saw came from some youtube drama. One of the MeidasTouch contributors Jennifer Denson ended up leaving the company because they wouldn't let her cover these theories.

Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, anyone and everyone who has had a dissenting post deleted/removed from Twitter should join together and file a Section 1983 suit against Elon for depriving them of their civil rights.  Because the facts make it a pretty damned solid (and important) case.

1.  Elon is a powerful, senior employee and officer of the US Government.  Trump has admitted so, publicly.  Further, Elon's public statements and tweets on the matter make it clear that he is.

2.  That powerful, senior officer of the US Government controls a major site for the dissemination and public discussion of topics that include the operation of the US Government, specifically including the functions of that particular officer of the US Government.

3.  That powerful, senior officer of the US Government actually USES that site for making statements directly connected to and relevant to his role and actions as a US Government official.

4.  That powerful, senior officer of the US Government suppresses/drowns out dissenting speech by a) actively deleting/hiding dissenting posts and comments, b) creating/directing the creation of an algorithm that performs the same function.

5.  Government suppression of speech, particularly on matters of public import and interest, is a plain violation of the First Amendment rights of the speakers.

 

TLDR: Because Musk is an officer of the government and does not just use but CONTROLS Twitter in connection with and in furtherance of the performance of his duties as a government official, Twitter is -- for First Amendment purposes -- an arm of the US Government.  Thus, it cannot suppress or favor any speech based on its content.  Doing so violates the First Amendment, and Elon (in his capacity as the owner and controller of Twitter) should be enjoined from doing so.

It is a good lawsuit.  It is a VERY good lawsuit.  It should be brought posthaste, seeking emergency injunctive relief, because the harm is real, ongoing, and there is no adequate remedy at law if it is allowed to continue.


If only there were some lawyers on SurlyHorns that could do this.

Posted
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, anyone and everyone who has had a dissenting post deleted/removed from Twitter should join together and file a Section 1983 suit against Elon for depriving them of their civil rights.  Because the facts make it a pretty damned solid (and important) case.

1.  Elon is a powerful, senior employee and officer of the US Government.  Trump has admitted so, publicly.  Further, Elon's public statements and tweets on the matter make it clear that he is.

2.  That powerful, senior officer of the US Government controls a major site for the dissemination and public discussion of topics that include the operation of the US Government, specifically including the functions of that particular officer of the US Government.

3.  That powerful, senior officer of the US Government actually USES that site for making statements directly connected to and relevant to his role and actions as a US Government official.

4.  That powerful, senior officer of the US Government suppresses/drowns out dissenting speech by a) actively deleting/hiding dissenting posts and comments, b) creating/directing the creation of an algorithm that performs the same function.

5.  Government suppression of speech, particularly on matters of public import and interest, is a plain violation of the First Amendment rights of the speakers.

 

TLDR: Because Musk is an officer of the government and does not just use but CONTROLS Twitter in connection with and in furtherance of the performance of his duties as a government official, Twitter is -- for First Amendment purposes -- an arm of the US Government.  Thus, it cannot suppress or favor any speech based on its content.  Doing so violates the First Amendment, and Elon (in his capacity as the owner and controller of Twitter) should be enjoined from doing so.

It is a good lawsuit.  It is a VERY good lawsuit.  It should be brought posthaste, seeking emergency injunctive relief, because the harm is real, ongoing, and there is no adequate remedy at law if it is allowed to continue.

So what are you waiting on?  Go do some lawyer shit.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
59 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

 

I know a few people who are trafficking in these ideas. I'll need to go back and find the source material but the basis of their argument is that the Stop the Steal people illegally got their hands on Dominion voting machines back in 2021 (the Colorado chick went to prison for allowing it). They had plenty of time to reverse engineer them. While the machines are not physically connected to the internet during the election, there is nothing stopping them from having had software installed at some point that allows Starlink to access them (or so this theory says). Starlink had massive rollouts in some crucial counties in the seven swing states. That gets us to the bullet ballots portion of this.

This same piece that I'm going to go look for said Trump won all seven swing states -- the first time any POTUS candidate has done that in four decades. It goes on to say the chances of winning all seven of those states and go ever-so-slightly above the threshold that avoids and automatic hand recount WHILE not surpassing 50% of the popular vote nationwide was on the order of 35 billion to one. (That seems sky high to me but I'm a C-level math student.) This is where the bullet ballots come in -- some key counties in these swing states had an extremely inordinate amount of bullet ballots, which are where the voter votes for POTUS and nothing else. Usually, the number is less than 1% and they were seeing 5-9% in some counties. The final piece to their puzzle was Musk's creating voter rolls with his $1M daily lottery giveaway to get people registered to vote.

Not saying I believe any of the above but it's certainly more evidence than I ever saw Sidney Powell or Mike Lindell present for the 2020 election.

EDIT: here's the link to the piece I read. It's from way back in late November: https://www.planetcritical.com/p/cyber-security-experts-warn-election-hacked

 

These "it's very unlikely the winner would've won all the swing states" arguments are always extremely dumb. It's actually very common for the winner to sweep swing states.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

These "it's very unlikely the winner would've won all the swing states" arguments are always extremely dumb. It's actually very common for the winner to sweep swing states.


As much as Nate Silver is a self aggrandizing loser he said the same thing dozens of times leading up to this last election. 

Posted
21 hours ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

When you’re responsible for as many people losing their livelihood as he is, and as many people’s benefits being removed as he is, eventually one f them will snap and put a bullet in his head or blow him up.

I posted something similar in the Trump's America thread.  I think the high level of his fucking around accelerates the timeline of finding out.  

  • Drool 1
Posted
21 hours ago, Parliament said:

Maybe he'll do enough drugs he kills himself.

 

21 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean, we've reached the point in this timeline where I will be ridiculously overjoyed by the deaths of TWO people now, so....yeah.

Fucking OD, Elon, and do the world the greatest service you could possibly do.

Where is the karma?  We lost John Belushi and Chris Farley too young but this guy is hanging around?  

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Captainant said:

I'm not even joking, there's rumors going around originating from Grimes that Elon has a botched penis enlargement. Which would definitely explain a lot of his rage at the world and society.

image.png.09b3356ccf863407920101292bf03482.png

This is 100% pure unsubstantiated rumor, but I'll be goddamned if it doesn't make everything make sense with him

 

3 hours ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

I did send Leon a message on Twitter asking about the botched penile implant, but he hasn't responded.

Elon has a botched penis implant.  EHABPI

Elon has a botched penis implant.  EHABPI

Elon has a botched penis implant.  EHABPI

Elon has a botched penis implant.  EHABPI

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

These "it's very unlikely the winner would've won all the swing states" arguments are always extremely dumb. It's actually very common for the winner to sweep swing states.

 

51 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:


As much as Nate Silver is a self aggrandizing loser he said the same thing dozens of times leading up to this last election. 

I guess the idea of which states are truly "swing" states can change over time but no candidate has won this collection of seven (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Wisconsin) in the same election since Reagan whipped Mondale's ass in 1984. (Nixon did it in '72 thrashing of McGovern, FDR in '36 and that's it going back to the 1912 election when all 12 had become states.)

Posted
43 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

I guess the idea of which states are truly "swing" states can change over time but no candidate has won this collection of seven (Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Wisconsin) in the same election since Reagan whipped Mondale's ass in 1984. (Nixon did it in '72 thrashing of McGovern, FDR in '36 and that's it going back to the 1912 election when all 12 had become states.)

You can come up with some subset of states that no candidate has won in the prior 50+ years pretty much every election. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You can come up with some subset of states that no candidate has won in the prior 50+ years pretty much every election. 

Absolutely true. However, in going and looking at the election maps for every year back to 1912 my recollection is very rarely did states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania go to the same candidate in the same election more than a few times. Most of those were in routs. That he nailed all seven by just enough votes to not trigger recounts and not get 50% of the popular vote is pretty remarkable. (Almost too remarkable. /wink)

Posted
6 hours ago, mchookem said:

you know... he's such a fucking snowflake weirdo that if this story gains enough traction i bet he'd go so far as to whip it out somewhere for inspection 😆

It looks like a microwaved hotdog now

Posted (edited)

Educate your friends and neighbors about their Teslas while you're breaking their glass and spray painting that shit  /only kidding about spray painting

 

Edited by Chopper
  • Hook 'Em 1

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...