Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

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...

2ETEKA's profile picture

Holyhekatuiteka

12,111 subscribers

23,647 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

‘Ok groomer’ : Winston Peters responds to Chloe’s attack video. WP gave 3 interviews today on the NZFirsts bill for a legal definition of a woman. - Bob McCoskrie plays Chloe’s garbage video where she claims that WP is dragging ‘imported ideas into NZ’ this from a perennial bird brain who only ever Bo it’s up crap from overseas, Chloe has never had an original idea in her demented brain. Bob asks a laughing WP for a response to batshit crazy Chloe claims : ‘ok groomer’😂 Duncan Garner asks how this all happened and what has happened to the left ? WP says that Chloe is condoning quote ‘Pedo behaviour and imagery’ and Ben Doyle won’t be surviving in Parliament. Shane Jones & Chris Luxon make cameos that add to the hilarity - (to a very serious issue). Finally on RNZ this morning listen to that blabbering idiot Corin Dann illustrating why no one listens to that propaganda channel, WP mentions defunding RNZ and the interview is ended😂. The big question here is - will WP’s Woke crusade be helped or hindered by National & Act? Enjoy.
8:30

‘Ok groomer’ : Winston Peters responds to Chloe’s attack video. WP gave 3 interviews today on the NZFirsts bill for a legal definition of a woman. - Bob McCoskrie plays Chloe’s garbage video where she claims that WP is dragging ‘imported ideas into NZ’ this from a perennial bird brain who only ever Bo it’s up crap from overseas, Chloe has never had an original idea in her demented brain. Bob asks a laughing WP for a response to batshit crazy Chloe claims : ‘ok groomer’😂 Duncan Garner asks how this all happened and what has happened to the left ? WP says that Chloe is condoning quote ‘Pedo behaviour and imagery’ and Ben Doyle won’t be surviving in Parliament. Shane Jones & Chris Luxon make cameos that add to the hilarity - (to a very serious issue). Finally on RNZ this morning listen to that blabbering idiot Corin Dann illustrating why no one listens to that propaganda channel, WP mentions defunding RNZ and the interview is ended😂. The big question here is - will WP’s Woke crusade be helped or hindered by National & Act? Enjoy.

Holyhekatuiteka

21,670 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.
0:24

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 • 2 ay 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
1:30

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

112,838 görüntüleme • 6 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.
3:34

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®

106,499 görüntüleme • 5 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
2:03

'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 • 6 ay önce

The man accused of doxxing the lone juror speaks out. “If that turns out to be true and that he may have lied on his questionnaire by not telling about the active restraining order against him for assaulting his 13-year-old nephew and the previous charge of assaulting his wife 5 years ago while she was holding a baby, if he failed to mention all of that, that’s relevant! What world are we living in where we can’t talk about that?” Again, this is all exactly what Candace does—she takes pieces of information and uses them to extrapolate wild things she has no proof of. It’s so irresponsible to be even suggesting he lied to the court when you don’t have the information necessary to verify that.
1:41

The man accused of doxxing the lone juror speaks out. “If that turns out to be true and that he may have lied on his questionnaire by not telling about the active restraining order against him for assaulting his 13-year-old nephew and the previous charge of assaulting his wife 5 years ago while she was holding a baby, if he failed to mention all of that, that’s relevant! What world are we living in where we can’t talk about that?” Again, this is all exactly what Candace does—she takes pieces of information and uses them to extrapolate wild things she has no proof of. It’s so irresponsible to be even suggesting he lied to the court when you don’t have the information necessary to verify that.

Natalie Jean Beisner

32,464 görüntüleme • 10 gün 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.
1:43

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

20,771 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.
6:07

[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

22,015 görüntüleme • 4 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.
8:11

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 • 4 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.
2:18

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 🏒

191,345 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

A pilot put a passenger jet down on a river and got every person on board off alive. Within days, investigators were asking him what he had eaten for lunch. He told them a tuna sandwich. Then they asked whether he had had a candy bar. Whether he had had a soda. That is not small talk. There is a precise reason those 2 questions could have ended his career, and Tom Hanks lays it out in about 4 sentences. The pilot is Chesley Sullenberger. Hanks played him, spent time with him first, and says the man walked him through the entire script telling him which parts never happened. As Hanks was told it, the stake was money. If the board could establish that the pilot did 1 thing wrong, the insurance on an airplane he puts at 17 million dollars would not have to be paid out. Every question in that room was built for that. It went on for the better part of a year. In the film it takes days, because films cannot afford a year. What was happening to him has a name in psychology. Baruch Fischhoff described it in 1975 and called it creeping determinism. Once you know how something ended, the ending looks like it was always coming, and every road you did not take looks like it was sitting right there, clearly marked, the whole time. Which is why the question "why did you not do this instead" is close to unanswerable. It is asked by people who know the ending, to a person who did not have it. There is a second effect underneath, well documented in aviation and in medicine. The person at the centre of the investigation frequently comes out of it in worse condition than the people he saved. Researchers gave that person a name. He is the second victim. Hanks is 67 when he says this, and what he admires is not the landing. It is a distinction he makes in 1 sentence near the end, and it is the whole reason he told the story at all. He saved everyone on that plane. Then he spent a year proving he had not eaten a candy bar.
12:36

A pilot put a passenger jet down on a river and got every person on board off alive. Within days, investigators were asking him what he had eaten for lunch. He told them a tuna sandwich. Then they asked whether he had had a candy bar. Whether he had had a soda. That is not small talk. There is a precise reason those 2 questions could have ended his career, and Tom Hanks lays it out in about 4 sentences. The pilot is Chesley Sullenberger. Hanks played him, spent time with him first, and says the man walked him through the entire script telling him which parts never happened. As Hanks was told it, the stake was money. If the board could establish that the pilot did 1 thing wrong, the insurance on an airplane he puts at 17 million dollars would not have to be paid out. Every question in that room was built for that. It went on for the better part of a year. In the film it takes days, because films cannot afford a year. What was happening to him has a name in psychology. Baruch Fischhoff described it in 1975 and called it creeping determinism. Once you know how something ended, the ending looks like it was always coming, and every road you did not take looks like it was sitting right there, clearly marked, the whole time. Which is why the question "why did you not do this instead" is close to unanswerable. It is asked by people who know the ending, to a person who did not have it. There is a second effect underneath, well documented in aviation and in medicine. The person at the centre of the investigation frequently comes out of it in worse condition than the people he saved. Researchers gave that person a name. He is the second victim. Hanks is 67 when he says this, and what he admires is not the landing. It is a distinction he makes in 1 sentence near the end, and it is the whole reason he told the story at all. He saved everyone on that plane. Then he spent a year proving he had not eaten a candy bar.

Stefan.

210,938 görüntüleme • 24 gün 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.
9:25

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

68,177 görüntüleme • 10 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👇
1:19

‘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 • 2 ay önce