Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Ben Bussy Doyle got psyched out by WP today during his question about HIV. WP objected to him using the word Aotearoa instead of New Zealand. WP raises a point of order, proceeds to basically tell off Gerry for allowing the question in the first place “They aren’t going... to change it (the country’s name) by themselves!” Gerry accepts he missed the written question when it was submitted, (it has been decided by the speaker that NZ be used as well when using AO). The speaker agrees with WP’s point of order and then tells Bussy to start again. Because Bussy is thick, has mental illness and is inexperienced he thinks he has to insert “New Zealand” after Aotearoa, glancing at WP while he does it, immediately - WP : Point of order “he’s not sticking to the script” LOL’s Gerry gets shitty and through clinched teeth says : “BRENDON Doyle one last time” 😂 You have to read the approved question word for word. Amateur. Ben the Bussy then asks Casey Costello what is she going to do regarding reducing local HIV transmission by 2030 (there’s that year again) and also what will she do to stop further Infections at birth, pointing out NZ’s first case in 20 years - Costello tells the house that as Bussy very well knows, the two cases are from travellers who had a baby here while pregnant so it wasn’t acquired locally. This twisted idiot is out of his depth. All quite amazing especially considering Bussy worked at the Burnett foundation while they rolled out their campaign called “don’t be a dick” and even just last year shot a political video in front of the poster which discouraged causal partners from asking before sex if that person has a STD … including HIV. We are living in clown land.show more

Holyhekatuiteka

11,974 subscribers

23,492 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

“Not a day goes by I do not regret ruling out Winston Peters from coalition” That sausage eating gimp said that if Labour were in power they would have recognised Palestine two years ago - yes just after October 7th. He’s lost his mind. He went on a podcast and relentlessly attacked Winston Peters, saying that WP was always going to make the decision not to recognise Palestine but deliberately left NZ guessing so not to have mass protests while he was addressing the UN. If that’s true - it’s smart. Hipkins “WP basically attacked Australia, UK and Canada and we will have real repercussions from those countries” btw not one of those countries has condemned or even lightly criticised WP for his speech. Hipkins says if Labour is elected next year they’ll immediately recognise Palestine and then hilariously ruled out WP from coalition🤣🤣. Sausage eater is once again rewriting history, WP ruled out Labour months before the 2023 election. Maybe his funniest line “Luxon is so weak he’s let his two coalition partners seek to divide our country” - says the dickhead who has TPM and The Greens as flatmates LOL ! At this stage Hipkins is campaigning for NZFirst🤣 Watch here : and also footage of WP’s state of Nation speech in CHCH. Fresh off the plane from the US WP deals to the Gazafarians in his inimitable style. Enjoy.

“Not a day goes by I do not regret ruling out Winston Peters from coalition” That sausage eating gimp said that if Labour were in power they would have recognised Palestine two years ago - yes just after October 7th. He’s lost his mind. He went on a podcast and relentlessly attacked Winston Peters, saying that WP was always going to make the decision not to recognise Palestine but deliberately left NZ guessing so not to have mass protests while he was addressing the UN. If that’s true - it’s smart. Hipkins “WP basically attacked Australia, UK and Canada and we will have real repercussions from those countries” btw not one of those countries has condemned or even lightly criticised WP for his speech. Hipkins says if Labour is elected next year they’ll immediately recognise Palestine and then hilariously ruled out WP from coalition🤣🤣. Sausage eater is once again rewriting history, WP ruled out Labour months before the 2023 election. Maybe his funniest line “Luxon is so weak he’s let his two coalition partners seek to divide our country” - says the dickhead who has TPM and The Greens as flatmates LOL ! At this stage Hipkins is campaigning for NZFirst🤣 Watch here : and also footage of WP’s state of Nation speech in CHCH. Fresh off the plane from the US WP deals to the Gazafarians in his inimitable style. Enjoy.

Holyhekatuiteka

11,211 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Winston fights on..! Today in the house NZ First leader Winston Peters challenged the speaker's ruling yesterday on the use of the word "Aotearoa". In his response, speaker Brownlee agrees that the name of New Zealand cannot be changed unless by legislation and at the will of the people. He therefore (apparently without realising) makes the case that all current usage of the word on documentation is illegal. I agree, and it should be removed. Nowhere or at anytime did the people of New Zealand express the will that the country's name should be changed. Especially to an entirely inappropriate word like Aotearoa. It is plain the changes that have been instituted by over-powerful and unelected bureaucrats were illegal and against the will of the people. Therefore, all documentation bearing this word should be junked, and replacements should only refer to "New Zealand". This includes especially passports and birth certificates. The govt needs to follow the law.

Winston fights on..! Today in the house NZ First leader Winston Peters challenged the speaker's ruling yesterday on the use of the word "Aotearoa". In his response, speaker Brownlee agrees that the name of New Zealand cannot be changed unless by legislation and at the will of the people. He therefore (apparently without realising) makes the case that all current usage of the word on documentation is illegal. I agree, and it should be removed. Nowhere or at anytime did the people of New Zealand express the will that the country's name should be changed. Especially to an entirely inappropriate word like Aotearoa. It is plain the changes that have been instituted by over-powerful and unelected bureaucrats were illegal and against the will of the people. Therefore, all documentation bearing this word should be junked, and replacements should only refer to "New Zealand". This includes especially passports and birth certificates. The govt needs to follow the law.

The Redbaiter

11,387 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Here’s the “full context” since Barrett stans want to flip out in my comments. He said it and then used it as a way to flirt with Dee, which ALSO pissed me off. I don’t think Barrett is homophobic. That was not my point. I’m not an idiot. He has mostly gay friends. But for someone who has so many gay friends, he should definitely know the optics of saying something like this. And using the word gross in reference to cuddling with a gay person. And I’m allowed to point that out. Thanks.

Here’s the “full context” since Barrett stans want to flip out in my comments. He said it and then used it as a way to flirt with Dee, which ALSO pissed me off. I don’t think Barrett is homophobic. That was not my point. I’m not an idiot. He has mostly gay friends. But for someone who has so many gay friends, he should definitely know the optics of saying something like this. And using the word gross in reference to cuddling with a gay person. And I’m allowed to point that out. Thanks.

TV Tweets 📺

35,219 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce

When a motion for the removal of the Speaker is taken up, Article 96 makes it very clear that the Speaker cannot sit in the Chair. The actions of the Speaker also cannot be admitted at that point of time. You (Jagdambika Pal) have been appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. You are sitting there as a member of the panel of chairpersons appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Article 93 states: “The House of the People shall, as soon as may be, choose two members of the House to be respectively Speaker and Deputy Speaker thereof and, so often as the office of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker becomes vacant, the House shall choose another member to be Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be.” Immediately after the election, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are supposed to be elected. For the last seven years, you have not elected a Deputy Speaker. You have created a constitutional vacuum. This question is very clear. Article 96 is very clear. 👉The House has to select a person to sit in the Chair. : Congress General Secretary (Org.) K C Venugopal ji in Lok Sabha

When a motion for the removal of the Speaker is taken up, Article 96 makes it very clear that the Speaker cannot sit in the Chair. The actions of the Speaker also cannot be admitted at that point of time. You (Jagdambika Pal) have been appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. You are sitting there as a member of the panel of chairpersons appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Article 93 states: “The House of the People shall, as soon as may be, choose two members of the House to be respectively Speaker and Deputy Speaker thereof and, so often as the office of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker becomes vacant, the House shall choose another member to be Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be.” Immediately after the election, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are supposed to be elected. For the last seven years, you have not elected a Deputy Speaker. You have created a constitutional vacuum. This question is very clear. Article 96 is very clear. 👉The House has to select a person to sit in the Chair. : Congress General Secretary (Org.) K C Venugopal ji in Lok Sabha

Congress

112,713 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

They are asking the Deputy Speaker to read what is actually written in the clause line by line. Instead of doing that, he keeps going ahead and only mentioning the numbers. What is in the clause? Tell us, read it out. What if the content has been altered? This is very wrong. When did Nigeria turn to this? Is this what you folks call democracy? This is hogwash! We have been hijacked by criminals.

They are asking the Deputy Speaker to read what is actually written in the clause line by line. Instead of doing that, he keeps going ahead and only mentioning the numbers. What is in the clause? Tell us, read it out. What if the content has been altered? This is very wrong. When did Nigeria turn to this? Is this what you folks call democracy? This is hogwash! We have been hijacked by criminals.

Olaudah Equiano®

106,379 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Auron is banking on the stupidity of his audience here when it comes to basic English. In the English language, there are many words that have multiple meanings depending on how they are used. Auron tries to redefine our founding document by implying that the word “Constitution” only has one definition, and it is “the composition of something.” “Constitution” has another definition, which is “a body of fundamental principles according to which a state is acknowledged to be governed.” These principles are unchanging and timeless. It comes from the Latin word “constiutio,” which means “to establish” or “to set in order.” The fact that the word “constitution” also has another totally different meaning has NOTHING to do with the United States Constitution. Americans need to read and educate themselves so they don’t get deceived by sophists who are counting on their ignorance.

Auron is banking on the stupidity of his audience here when it comes to basic English. In the English language, there are many words that have multiple meanings depending on how they are used. Auron tries to redefine our founding document by implying that the word “Constitution” only has one definition, and it is “the composition of something.” “Constitution” has another definition, which is “a body of fundamental principles according to which a state is acknowledged to be governed.” These principles are unchanging and timeless. It comes from the Latin word “constiutio,” which means “to establish” or “to set in order.” The fact that the word “constitution” also has another totally different meaning has NOTHING to do with the United States Constitution. Americans need to read and educate themselves so they don’t get deceived by sophists who are counting on their ignorance.

A 🌸

76,411 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

'Larijani was killed after he lost his status as the main candidate for the leadership of the transition period,' — CNN host Amanpour. 'What's even worse for the US and Israel, even analysts on their side are now actually saying that it is Iran that is currently driving the situation. And we don't see any end to it. At least from the American side, it is believed that there is no way out of this situation, because everything is in the hands of the IRGC. Larijani was the Speaker of Parliament for many years, he is very close to the IRGC, was close to the former Supreme Leader. He was considered a preferred figure for the transition period. If they were looking for someone with whom they could agree, then in September last year, that is, about six months ago, he was the main candidate. But then in February this year, that is, about a month ago, he lost this status and became a target, as he took, as expected, a tough stance in response to the actions of the US and Israel after the start of the war. And this again raises the question: what is the plan of Israel and Trump, except to continue the bombings and, as the targets are exhausted, to increasingly approach strikes on civilian objects? And the number of civilian victims continues to grow.' - SK

'Larijani was killed after he lost his status as the main candidate for the leadership of the transition period,' — CNN host Amanpour. 'What's even worse for the US and Israel, even analysts on their side are now actually saying that it is Iran that is currently driving the situation. And we don't see any end to it. At least from the American side, it is believed that there is no way out of this situation, because everything is in the hands of the IRGC. Larijani was the Speaker of Parliament for many years, he is very close to the IRGC, was close to the former Supreme Leader. He was considered a preferred figure for the transition period. If they were looking for someone with whom they could agree, then in September last year, that is, about six months ago, he was the main candidate. But then in February this year, that is, about a month ago, he lost this status and became a target, as he took, as expected, a tough stance in response to the actions of the US and Israel after the start of the war. And this again raises the question: what is the plan of Israel and Trump, except to continue the bombings and, as the targets are exhausted, to increasingly approach strikes on civilian objects? And the number of civilian victims continues to grow.' - SK

Zlatti71

15,270 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

As weak as a kitten. Today on Newstalk ZB, PM Luxon proved once and for all he is not the man New Zealand needs to lead it out of its current socio-economic mess. Part two of his interview with tame liberal/ progressive presenter Kerre Woodham where he pretty much caves in on every issue that matters. Not happy with distancing himself from the Trump presidency he goes on to stab both of his coalition partners in the back by making light of two issues they plainly believe are important. He joins in with the host in denigrating David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill. They then both go on to make light of Winston Peter’s resistance to the unwanted and informal attempt by the legacy media and separatist radicals to change the country’s name. No matter which side you’re on, these are two vital issues to a lot of New Zealanders. I personally know many who are absolutely fired up over the use of the totally inapplicable word Aotearoa instead of (or along with) New Zealand. “Petty point scoring” Ms Woodham calls it. The Prime Minister proves in this clip just what a spineless compromiser he is at heart and that he is absolutely the wrong man for this time and place. Christopher Luxon is a disaster for the National Party and for New Zealand. He has to go at the earliest opportunity.

As weak as a kitten. Today on Newstalk ZB, PM Luxon proved once and for all he is not the man New Zealand needs to lead it out of its current socio-economic mess. Part two of his interview with tame liberal/ progressive presenter Kerre Woodham where he pretty much caves in on every issue that matters. Not happy with distancing himself from the Trump presidency he goes on to stab both of his coalition partners in the back by making light of two issues they plainly believe are important. He joins in with the host in denigrating David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill. They then both go on to make light of Winston Peter’s resistance to the unwanted and informal attempt by the legacy media and separatist radicals to change the country’s name. No matter which side you’re on, these are two vital issues to a lot of New Zealanders. I personally know many who are absolutely fired up over the use of the totally inapplicable word Aotearoa instead of (or along with) New Zealand. “Petty point scoring” Ms Woodham calls it. The Prime Minister proves in this clip just what a spineless compromiser he is at heart and that he is absolutely the wrong man for this time and place. Christopher Luxon is a disaster for the National Party and for New Zealand. He has to go at the earliest opportunity.

The Redbaiter

20,759 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

21,983 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. Why Does Evil Dominate the World? — John MacArthur // March 4, 2007 If God is not in total control of evil, if He has not ordained it – listen - and if He does not have it under complete control at every millisecond of history, then this universe is out of control at the most crucial point. If God is not in control of this completely, then how and when will He get the knowledge and the power to get it under control? And I would ask you this: would you rather have a God trying to get control of evil, or a God completely in control of it? Take your choice. But the God of the Bible is in complete control of evil for His own purposes. It is really heresy to say that the world is full of evil apart from a predetermined plan and purpose by God that is far above the willy-nilly choices of people. So, what do we know up to now? Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. This is critical: He had a purpose for evil. What is that purpose that God had for evil? Before I answer that question - and that’s the fourth in our little outline - let me read the Westminster Confession from the 1700s; some great theologians and biblical scholars put this together. Listen carefully: “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:“ Yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second-hand causes taken away ... sinfulness proceeds not only from the creature; proceeds only from the creature and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither ... can be the author and approver of sin.” But then, says the Westminster Confession, all that God decrees and all that God providentially brings to pass is all to the praise of His glory - and they got it right.The reason for God ordaining evil is for the praise of His glory. Let me ask you a simple question to help you answer the question - the bigger question: is God more glorious because of sin existing or less glorious? Pretty easy question to answer, isn’t it? That really is the ultimate question. Throughout all the eons of eternity, will God receive more glory from His creatures because sin existed or less? And, friends, that’s really all that matters, is the eternal glory of God. So, it’s fourth down, and we’re on the ten-yard line, and I’m pulling out the winning play and we’re going for six for the victory. Turn to Romans 3 - and I want you to track with me a little bit; can’t take time to develop all of this, but I’m going to give you a good start. Wish I could build context; we don’t have time. But let’s look at chapter 3 and verse 5. Opening statement: “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say?” Grab that phrase: our right - unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. And Paul uses the first of a series of verbs; this one happens to be sunistēmi, translated demonstrates in the New American Standard. It is a verb that means to disclose, to reveal, to put on display, to show. Our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. Another way to say that would be, would you really understand the righteousness of God if you didn’t understand unrighteousness? Isn’t there something to be gained by the contrast? Paul has been showing that God is faithful to His promises to Israel, and their sin and unbelief cannot alter God’s covenant, cannot alter God’s faithfulness.

Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. Why Does Evil Dominate the World? — John MacArthur // March 4, 2007 If God is not in total control of evil, if He has not ordained it – listen - and if He does not have it under complete control at every millisecond of history, then this universe is out of control at the most crucial point. If God is not in control of this completely, then how and when will He get the knowledge and the power to get it under control? And I would ask you this: would you rather have a God trying to get control of evil, or a God completely in control of it? Take your choice. But the God of the Bible is in complete control of evil for His own purposes. It is really heresy to say that the world is full of evil apart from a predetermined plan and purpose by God that is far above the willy-nilly choices of people. So, what do we know up to now? Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. This is critical: He had a purpose for evil. What is that purpose that God had for evil? Before I answer that question - and that’s the fourth in our little outline - let me read the Westminster Confession from the 1700s; some great theologians and biblical scholars put this together. Listen carefully: “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:“ Yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second-hand causes taken away ... sinfulness proceeds not only from the creature; proceeds only from the creature and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither ... can be the author and approver of sin.” But then, says the Westminster Confession, all that God decrees and all that God providentially brings to pass is all to the praise of His glory - and they got it right.The reason for God ordaining evil is for the praise of His glory. Let me ask you a simple question to help you answer the question - the bigger question: is God more glorious because of sin existing or less glorious? Pretty easy question to answer, isn’t it? That really is the ultimate question. Throughout all the eons of eternity, will God receive more glory from His creatures because sin existed or less? And, friends, that’s really all that matters, is the eternal glory of God. So, it’s fourth down, and we’re on the ten-yard line, and I’m pulling out the winning play and we’re going for six for the victory. Turn to Romans 3 - and I want you to track with me a little bit; can’t take time to develop all of this, but I’m going to give you a good start. Wish I could build context; we don’t have time. But let’s look at chapter 3 and verse 5. Opening statement: “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say?” Grab that phrase: our right - unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. And Paul uses the first of a series of verbs; this one happens to be sunistēmi, translated demonstrates in the New American Standard. It is a verb that means to disclose, to reveal, to put on display, to show. Our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. Another way to say that would be, would you really understand the righteousness of God if you didn’t understand unrighteousness? Isn’t there something to be gained by the contrast? Paul has been showing that God is faithful to His promises to Israel, and their sin and unbelief cannot alter God’s covenant, cannot alter God’s faithfulness.

Terri Green

24,466 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

i wanna talk about the scene immediately after tuna melts for a sec because there’s so much symbolism in this scene and it’s honestly really interesting to me because at first glance it could quite easily be one that’s overlooked. sure, it obviously shows shane is tightly wound after running away from ilya in tuna-melt-gate but there’s deeper layers to it as well. the most obvious (imo) is shane ordering a ginger ale and being unable to get one, when in the scene immediately prior we’ve just witnessed him be given one without even asking at ilya’s house. it really plays into the whole ginger ale as a metaphor for shane’s “true self” and that even when he tries to let parts of the real him slip through he meets obstacles to prevent that happening, whereas with ilya he’s allowed to be himself and totally at ease. there’s also the moment where the waiter asks if anyone will be joining them and removes the extra place setting. it highlights the space in shane’s life thats left empty because he isn’t able to publicly fill it. he can’t have anyone sat at that place setting because he can’t be seen in public with the person he loves, so it stays empty. its also a sort of parallel for the final episode, when that extra space at the hollander’s dining table is filled by ilya. this is just a tiny thing and probs me thinking too much into it but i love the choice to have shane studying the menu the whole time. he’s holding it in a way that it sort of shields him from his parents and puts a barrier between them, so it’s kind of like a physical “wall” that he has up to protect himself. then when his parents want to go to the tennis, shane’s immediate instinct is to lie so they can get in, which yuna (correctly) points out isn’t who he is. it really represents to me how comfortable shane’s become in living the “lie” of his life and hiding his true self - and yuna’s words are a harsh reminder to him that he’s really not as okay with that as he’s been telling himself he is. it sort of snaps him out of it for a moment and reminds him that there is a real discomfort for him in lying to the people he cares about. finally the little nod at the end to shane’s parents suspecting that maybe he might be gay - his dad says “swedish princess” really incredulously as though he knows that was never going to tempt shane. this was probably more meant to be referencing how fame and events that are all about appearances aren’t shane’s scene at all but it definitely could be read as them suspecting a little bit considering they say in episode 6 that they had done for a while.

i wanna talk about the scene immediately after tuna melts for a sec because there’s so much symbolism in this scene and it’s honestly really interesting to me because at first glance it could quite easily be one that’s overlooked. sure, it obviously shows shane is tightly wound after running away from ilya in tuna-melt-gate but there’s deeper layers to it as well. the most obvious (imo) is shane ordering a ginger ale and being unable to get one, when in the scene immediately prior we’ve just witnessed him be given one without even asking at ilya’s house. it really plays into the whole ginger ale as a metaphor for shane’s “true self” and that even when he tries to let parts of the real him slip through he meets obstacles to prevent that happening, whereas with ilya he’s allowed to be himself and totally at ease. there’s also the moment where the waiter asks if anyone will be joining them and removes the extra place setting. it highlights the space in shane’s life thats left empty because he isn’t able to publicly fill it. he can’t have anyone sat at that place setting because he can’t be seen in public with the person he loves, so it stays empty. its also a sort of parallel for the final episode, when that extra space at the hollander’s dining table is filled by ilya. this is just a tiny thing and probs me thinking too much into it but i love the choice to have shane studying the menu the whole time. he’s holding it in a way that it sort of shields him from his parents and puts a barrier between them, so it’s kind of like a physical “wall” that he has up to protect himself. then when his parents want to go to the tennis, shane’s immediate instinct is to lie so they can get in, which yuna (correctly) points out isn’t who he is. it really represents to me how comfortable shane’s become in living the “lie” of his life and hiding his true self - and yuna’s words are a harsh reminder to him that he’s really not as okay with that as he’s been telling himself he is. it sort of snaps him out of it for a moment and reminds him that there is a real discomfort for him in lying to the people he cares about. finally the little nod at the end to shane’s parents suspecting that maybe he might be gay - his dad says “swedish princess” really incredulously as though he knows that was never going to tempt shane. this was probably more meant to be referencing how fame and events that are all about appearances aren’t shane’s scene at all but it definitely could be read as them suspecting a little bit considering they say in episode 6 that they had done for a while.

frances 🏒

189,368 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Issues of paternity have shaped our society for generations, especially in Zimbabwe. They did not start today. I remember going to a funeral with my father in the 1990s, and as we sat around the fire the men began sharing stories. One of them has stayed with me ever since. A Zimbabwean doctor had married a nurse, and they struggled to have children. As usual, when there is no child, the blame was placed on the woman. She went to see her own doctor, who told her plainly that she was not the problem, and advised her to bring her husband for testing. The husband refused, as many Zimbabwean men tend to do. Their marriage eventually collapsed, with the man insisting he could not be the problem because he had a child with another woman before marrying the nurse. That woman, he said, was also a doctor, and he was raising that child. After the divorce, the nurse remarried another doctor, and she immediately fell pregnant. Because it was a tight medical community, the whole situation became a talking point. The ex-husband had loudly declared that his former wife was barren, yet here she was having one child after another, three in total, with her new husband. Meanwhile, the ex-husband remarried, and again there were no children. One day the ex-husband and his former wife met at a gathering. During a casual conversation, as people who once knew each other, she told him directly that he was raising a child who was not his. She told him that he had no capacity to father a child and that if he finally went for tests, he would discover the truth. She reminded him how he had insulted her and her parents, and how he had refused to listen. The revelation shook him. He went for tests, and it was confirmed that he was the problem. He had spent seventeen years looking after a child who was not his. The moral of the story is simple, and I always stress this when mentoring young people. When in doubt, check. In fact, even without doubt, check. A DNA test at birth saves you from future heartbreak. Many men are raising children who are not theirs. Some women know exactly what they are doing. Others genuinely do not know because their relationships overlapped before they settled down. In those cases, even the woman cannot be sure who the father is. So when you have a child, get a DNA test. If you ask for one and a woman becomes defensive or resistant, that is a major red flag. At that point, the test is no longer optional, it is necessary. That is the reality of life today. As they say, trust is beautiful, but DNA is confirmation. In this life we live, hope is not a strategy when it comes to your children, so test your child and protect your future, as the saying goes. I have DNA stories that I could share for a whole year. If compulsory DNA testing was demanded of all of us today, you will be shocked by what will come out. This brother in the video is now going through denial. He has been told the truth, but he is still in shock, which is why he is asking for silly things from this woman. It is hard for any man to discover that the child he believed was his belongs to another man. That is why DNA testing is a necessity and why it should be compulsory.

Issues of paternity have shaped our society for generations, especially in Zimbabwe. They did not start today. I remember going to a funeral with my father in the 1990s, and as we sat around the fire the men began sharing stories. One of them has stayed with me ever since. A Zimbabwean doctor had married a nurse, and they struggled to have children. As usual, when there is no child, the blame was placed on the woman. She went to see her own doctor, who told her plainly that she was not the problem, and advised her to bring her husband for testing. The husband refused, as many Zimbabwean men tend to do. Their marriage eventually collapsed, with the man insisting he could not be the problem because he had a child with another woman before marrying the nurse. That woman, he said, was also a doctor, and he was raising that child. After the divorce, the nurse remarried another doctor, and she immediately fell pregnant. Because it was a tight medical community, the whole situation became a talking point. The ex-husband had loudly declared that his former wife was barren, yet here she was having one child after another, three in total, with her new husband. Meanwhile, the ex-husband remarried, and again there were no children. One day the ex-husband and his former wife met at a gathering. During a casual conversation, as people who once knew each other, she told him directly that he was raising a child who was not his. She told him that he had no capacity to father a child and that if he finally went for tests, he would discover the truth. She reminded him how he had insulted her and her parents, and how he had refused to listen. The revelation shook him. He went for tests, and it was confirmed that he was the problem. He had spent seventeen years looking after a child who was not his. The moral of the story is simple, and I always stress this when mentoring young people. When in doubt, check. In fact, even without doubt, check. A DNA test at birth saves you from future heartbreak. Many men are raising children who are not theirs. Some women know exactly what they are doing. Others genuinely do not know because their relationships overlapped before they settled down. In those cases, even the woman cannot be sure who the father is. So when you have a child, get a DNA test. If you ask for one and a woman becomes defensive or resistant, that is a major red flag. At that point, the test is no longer optional, it is necessary. That is the reality of life today. As they say, trust is beautiful, but DNA is confirmation. In this life we live, hope is not a strategy when it comes to your children, so test your child and protect your future, as the saying goes. I have DNA stories that I could share for a whole year. If compulsory DNA testing was demanded of all of us today, you will be shocked by what will come out. This brother in the video is now going through denial. He has been told the truth, but he is still in shock, which is why he is asking for silly things from this woman. It is hard for any man to discover that the child he believed was his belongs to another man. That is why DNA testing is a necessity and why it should be compulsory.

Hopewell Chin’ono

67,842 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

CNN’s John Miller tells Jake Tapper in the 6pm hour that it’s now clear the Minneapolis Catholic school shooter did not have “a specific motive” and there “won’t” ever “be a specific motive” because his “manifesto” was “kind of rambling” and “hate[d] everybody”.... “Well, looking through the manifesto, that's a lot of pages. Kind of rambling. A lot of it is his self pity for how his life is going, that he has been depressed for a long time, that he has been planning to do this for a long time, that he knows it's wrong, that he knows his friends are going to hate him for it, that he knows he's going to take his own life at the end of it. He said it was better to die standing up than kneeling down for all the injustices he appears to believe he has suffered during his life. This is not foreign territory for us. Basically, I look at this guy and I know this guy because we've seen this guy before. He has written messages all over his rifles to homages to the New Zealand shooter who killed 51 Muslims in mosques while they were praying to the Norway shooter who killed children in — in a camp. And — and is as known as the biggest body count, very much like what we saw among the Buffalo shooter. These are individuals who, you know, we look for that specific motive. There won't be a specific motive. He's got problems in his life. He has decided to blame everybody else. He has anti-black messages, anti-Semitic messages, anti-religious messages, anti-God messages. In other words, his motive is he hates everybody because his life's a mess. And he figures it's not his fault.”

CNN’s John Miller tells Jake Tapper in the 6pm hour that it’s now clear the Minneapolis Catholic school shooter did not have “a specific motive” and there “won’t” ever “be a specific motive” because his “manifesto” was “kind of rambling” and “hate[d] everybody”.... “Well, looking through the manifesto, that's a lot of pages. Kind of rambling. A lot of it is his self pity for how his life is going, that he has been depressed for a long time, that he has been planning to do this for a long time, that he knows it's wrong, that he knows his friends are going to hate him for it, that he knows he's going to take his own life at the end of it. He said it was better to die standing up than kneeling down for all the injustices he appears to believe he has suffered during his life. This is not foreign territory for us. Basically, I look at this guy and I know this guy because we've seen this guy before. He has written messages all over his rifles to homages to the New Zealand shooter who killed 51 Muslims in mosques while they were praying to the Norway shooter who killed children in — in a camp. And — and is as known as the biggest body count, very much like what we saw among the Buffalo shooter. These are individuals who, you know, we look for that specific motive. There won't be a specific motive. He's got problems in his life. He has decided to blame everybody else. He has anti-black messages, anti-Semitic messages, anti-religious messages, anti-God messages. In other words, his motive is he hates everybody because his life's a mess. And he figures it's not his fault.”

Curtis Houck

216,700 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

‘It’s not clear Trump even READ the Memorandum of Understanding he signed with Iran.’ —Doug Bandow, former Special Assistant to President Reagan ‘The Iranians do have to be careful not to overreach. They hold the Strait. That gives them enormous leverage, but they need to be prepared to make a deal when they can. I think what they were worried about here was that it was pretty clear Trump was violating the MOU in terms of the Strait as well as the issue of Lebanon. Now, it's not clear that he actually read the MOU before he signed it. Did he actually know what was in it? It was somewhat ambiguous. You send over a couple of real estate developers, a childhood friend and your son-in-law and expect them to work out negotiations with Iran? What could possibly go wrong? The point is that I think he realised he was in trouble, he got a lot of flak for it and thought that he could force the Iranians to back down. They are holding firm. I think the danger here is they have to be prepared at some point, I think, to make a deal. And the question then is, how do you communicate that to Trump while indicating he's got to make the real concessions… but that they're willing to let him, in a sense, get away with some of his victory claims at home, as long as they get the substantive wins in the Middle East?’ Watch the full interview in the quoted post below👇

‘It’s not clear Trump even READ the Memorandum of Understanding he signed with Iran.’ —Doug Bandow, former Special Assistant to President Reagan ‘The Iranians do have to be careful not to overreach. They hold the Strait. That gives them enormous leverage, but they need to be prepared to make a deal when they can. I think what they were worried about here was that it was pretty clear Trump was violating the MOU in terms of the Strait as well as the issue of Lebanon. Now, it's not clear that he actually read the MOU before he signed it. Did he actually know what was in it? It was somewhat ambiguous. You send over a couple of real estate developers, a childhood friend and your son-in-law and expect them to work out negotiations with Iran? What could possibly go wrong? The point is that I think he realised he was in trouble, he got a lot of flak for it and thought that he could force the Iranians to back down. They are holding firm. I think the danger here is they have to be prepared at some point, I think, to make a deal. And the question then is, how do you communicate that to Trump while indicating he's got to make the real concessions… but that they're willing to let him, in a sense, get away with some of his victory claims at home, as long as they get the substantive wins in the Middle East?’ Watch the full interview in the quoted post below👇

Going Underground

19,000 görüntüleme • 15 gün önce

60 min Australia has a new documentary out tomorrow titled "What sort of King will Prince William be?"🔥 This question has been asked time and time again since Prince William was a teenager and more so now in adulthood. And we have yet to get a clear answer. why? because despite being born and raised in the spotlight for over 4 decades, the world still knows very little about the Man; about what he thinks, what he will do next, or what type of King he will be. Unlike his father and brother who have been very open with the press on what they think and will do next, Prince William has remained a great enigma and has always played his cards very close to the chest🔥 Prince William has given some interesting interviews thoughout the years but he has mastered the art of answering Questions without revealing much of what is truly going on behind the scene🤭 So to the Press and the World, he has remained "the great known unknown", as Journalist Stephen Bates coined, after an interview with the Prince🔥 This in essence is why the world continues to be facsinated by him and his family and why the Question continues to be asked in documentaries after documentaries "What type of King will Prince William be?" Well, to better understand the Man, these documentaries get former staff who worked closely with him for years, such as his Private secretary Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton or in this case, Jason Knauf who made a name for himself after exposing the Bullying of staff by Meghan markle inside the palace🔥 Jason Knauf is a Texan-born former corporate affairs executive who worked for a range of institutions, from the office of the New Zealand prime minister, to HM Treasury and the Royal Bank of Scotland; before joining the royal household. This American became the communications secretary to Prince Willam, Catherine and Prince Harry in 2015. Then, after Harry married, Jason led the press team for Meghan and Harry; which is how he witnessed firsthand, her bullying of staff and decided to expose her to his senior boss, Prince William. After ejecting H&M from Kensington Palace, William then made Knauf, a senior adviser to Catherine and him. Following that, Knauf also served as CEO of the Royal foundation and helped with bringing Earthshot to life. In 2023, Prince William awarded him an LVO for his outstanding work and dedication to the royal household🤩 Therefore, This documentary will be the first time ever, Jason is on Record giving an insight about his former boss and I am quite piked to hear what he has to say. One thing Jason stated in the preview is that When it comes to Prince William, "What you see is what you get"; Indeed, Prince William walks the talk quietly👏🏽 The Prince has stated that his family will be his priority and he has done just that over the years; He has stated his loyalty to the crown and has done just that and never hesitated to protect the crown against his own brother; He has stated that his private life is his business and he has done exactly that protecting it; He is a said to be "Alllegic to drama" and indeed has stayed away from any type of provocations or drama. So yes, We have definitely seen William throughout the years walk the talk, and his quiet consistency in his Royal work and family life is excatly why he is so respected on the world stage as a leader by many❤️ In that Jason is right, One of the Main attributes of a Strong Leader is that he stands by his words and keep his promises, regardless of challenges🔥1/2 📹60 minutesAustralia

60 min Australia has a new documentary out tomorrow titled "What sort of King will Prince William be?"🔥 This question has been asked time and time again since Prince William was a teenager and more so now in adulthood. And we have yet to get a clear answer. why? because despite being born and raised in the spotlight for over 4 decades, the world still knows very little about the Man; about what he thinks, what he will do next, or what type of King he will be. Unlike his father and brother who have been very open with the press on what they think and will do next, Prince William has remained a great enigma and has always played his cards very close to the chest🔥 Prince William has given some interesting interviews thoughout the years but he has mastered the art of answering Questions without revealing much of what is truly going on behind the scene🤭 So to the Press and the World, he has remained "the great known unknown", as Journalist Stephen Bates coined, after an interview with the Prince🔥 This in essence is why the world continues to be facsinated by him and his family and why the Question continues to be asked in documentaries after documentaries "What type of King will Prince William be?" Well, to better understand the Man, these documentaries get former staff who worked closely with him for years, such as his Private secretary Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton or in this case, Jason Knauf who made a name for himself after exposing the Bullying of staff by Meghan markle inside the palace🔥 Jason Knauf is a Texan-born former corporate affairs executive who worked for a range of institutions, from the office of the New Zealand prime minister, to HM Treasury and the Royal Bank of Scotland; before joining the royal household. This American became the communications secretary to Prince Willam, Catherine and Prince Harry in 2015. Then, after Harry married, Jason led the press team for Meghan and Harry; which is how he witnessed firsthand, her bullying of staff and decided to expose her to his senior boss, Prince William. After ejecting H&M from Kensington Palace, William then made Knauf, a senior adviser to Catherine and him. Following that, Knauf also served as CEO of the Royal foundation and helped with bringing Earthshot to life. In 2023, Prince William awarded him an LVO for his outstanding work and dedication to the royal household🤩 Therefore, This documentary will be the first time ever, Jason is on Record giving an insight about his former boss and I am quite piked to hear what he has to say. One thing Jason stated in the preview is that When it comes to Prince William, "What you see is what you get"; Indeed, Prince William walks the talk quietly👏🏽 The Prince has stated that his family will be his priority and he has done just that over the years; He has stated his loyalty to the crown and has done just that and never hesitated to protect the crown against his own brother; He has stated that his private life is his business and he has done exactly that protecting it; He is a said to be "Alllegic to drama" and indeed has stayed away from any type of provocations or drama. So yes, We have definitely seen William throughout the years walk the talk, and his quiet consistency in his Royal work and family life is excatly why he is so respected on the world stage as a leader by many❤️ In that Jason is right, One of the Main attributes of a Strong Leader is that he stands by his words and keep his promises, regardless of challenges🔥1/2 📹60 minutesAustralia

Canellecitadelle

29,628 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

So the discourse around this Dave Ramsey clip is so mixed up that I’ve just decided to upload the whole thing. In the full context of the call, the caller makes it perfectly obvious that: 1. She has been with this man, whom she is now living with, for six years. 2. She is a nurse and can make her own money. 3. She has been out of school for two years, and in that time she has paid off $70,000 of the debt. In the course of the call, Dave never suggests that this man should have to pay for that debt. Indeed, he actively suggests that she leave him, which guarantees he will not pay for the debt. Dave also all but says that, because of her career choice, the caller will be able to pay for the debt on her own, even if she has to take extra hours. All Dave is saying—and this should have been obvious from the original clip—is that the two are not aligned on money and debt at all. It is also clear that Dave thinks the man is stringing her along, which he is. So they simply should not be married at all, because this is a fundamental failure in the relationship. I myself would add that, at this late stage in the relationship, if you do not trust a woman financially, you should simply not be with that woman. And that is perfectly fine. But what you do not do is drag her along for six years when she obviously wants to get married, and then put another two or three years of financial hoops in front of her so that maybe you will propose. It is a waste of everybody’s time.

So the discourse around this Dave Ramsey clip is so mixed up that I’ve just decided to upload the whole thing. In the full context of the call, the caller makes it perfectly obvious that: 1. She has been with this man, whom she is now living with, for six years. 2. She is a nurse and can make her own money. 3. She has been out of school for two years, and in that time she has paid off $70,000 of the debt. In the course of the call, Dave never suggests that this man should have to pay for that debt. Indeed, he actively suggests that she leave him, which guarantees he will not pay for the debt. Dave also all but says that, because of her career choice, the caller will be able to pay for the debt on her own, even if she has to take extra hours. All Dave is saying—and this should have been obvious from the original clip—is that the two are not aligned on money and debt at all. It is also clear that Dave thinks the man is stringing her along, which he is. So they simply should not be married at all, because this is a fundamental failure in the relationship. I myself would add that, at this late stage in the relationship, if you do not trust a woman financially, you should simply not be with that woman. And that is perfectly fine. But what you do not do is drag her along for six years when she obviously wants to get married, and then put another two or three years of financial hoops in front of her so that maybe you will propose. It is a waste of everybody’s time.

CTrefugees

135,314 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce