Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

😳 It seems Putin was accidentally asked an unscripted question at SPIEF After the customary praise from Russia-friendly American Rodney Cook and Romanian far-right MEP Diana Șoșoacă, the microphone unexpectedly went to Karin Kneissl — the former Austrian foreign minister whose wedding Putin famously attended. The question was about...

nexta_tv's profile picture

NEXTA

1,319,774 subscribers

161,416 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Putin was stunned by an uncomfortable question. It seems the dictator has forgotten how to answer them An Indian journalist caught Putin off guard with a question about Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Geeta Mohan asked the Russian leader what he could say to those Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine who, at the start of the invasion, were asking: “Why is Putin doing this to us?” Many of them spoke Russian, did not consider Russia an enemy, and never expected Russians to start destroying their homes. Putin was clearly confused and interrupted her: “I didn’t understand the question — shocked by what?” Mohan clarified that people were shocked that it was Russia that destroyed their homes. After a pause, Putin delivered a standard set of propaganda talking points: 📌 that these people supposedly lived in areas controlled by Kyiv, which the “Kyiv regime” was “destroying”; 📌 that Moscow was “forced” to launch the operation and “support” the occupation administrations; 📌 that “everyone could have left” if they didn’t want to “be with Russia”; 📌 and that the “referendums” were allegedly “open”. He never answered the main question — why Russia struck those it claimed it intended to protect.
1:49

Putin was stunned by an uncomfortable question. It seems the dictator has forgotten how to answer them An Indian journalist caught Putin off guard with a question about Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Geeta Mohan asked the Russian leader what he could say to those Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine who, at the start of the invasion, were asking: “Why is Putin doing this to us?” Many of them spoke Russian, did not consider Russia an enemy, and never expected Russians to start destroying their homes. Putin was clearly confused and interrupted her: “I didn’t understand the question — shocked by what?” Mohan clarified that people were shocked that it was Russia that destroyed their homes. After a pause, Putin delivered a standard set of propaganda talking points: 📌 that these people supposedly lived in areas controlled by Kyiv, which the “Kyiv regime” was “destroying”; 📌 that Moscow was “forced” to launch the operation and “support” the occupation administrations; 📌 that “everyone could have left” if they didn’t want to “be with Russia”; 📌 and that the “referendums” were allegedly “open”. He never answered the main question — why Russia struck those it claimed it intended to protect.

NEXTA

548,620 views • 8 months ago

#WATCH | Delhi: Congress MP Jairam Ramesh says, "It was natural that the Prime Minister meet all the 50 MPs who were members of these seven delegations that went to 32 countries. That was not a surprise as far as we were concerned. But we have only four simple questions. We would like the Prime Minister to answer these questions. Question number one - When will the Prime Minister chair an all-party meeting and meet the leaders? Leaders and not MPs and take them into confidence on the internal and external security challenges that have emerged after the Pahalgam terror attack. Secondly, our question is that after the Kargil war, we had a Kargil review committee... will there be a similar exercise, especially after the CDS revelations in Singapore? Will there be a review? Will there be an analysis? ... So will there be a report? Will it be tabled in Parliament? The third question is, during the Monsoon session, will the Prime Minister allow a two full-day discussion on internal and external security challenges, on China, on Pakistan, on the new emerging technologies which we have to contend with, with the challenges posed by President Trump's repeated claims..."
3:55

#WATCH | Delhi: Congress MP Jairam Ramesh says, "It was natural that the Prime Minister meet all the 50 MPs who were members of these seven delegations that went to 32 countries. That was not a surprise as far as we were concerned. But we have only four simple questions. We would like the Prime Minister to answer these questions. Question number one - When will the Prime Minister chair an all-party meeting and meet the leaders? Leaders and not MPs and take them into confidence on the internal and external security challenges that have emerged after the Pahalgam terror attack. Secondly, our question is that after the Kargil war, we had a Kargil review committee... will there be a similar exercise, especially after the CDS revelations in Singapore? Will there be a review? Will there be an analysis? ... So will there be a report? Will it be tabled in Parliament? The third question is, during the Monsoon session, will the Prime Minister allow a two full-day discussion on internal and external security challenges, on China, on Pakistan, on the new emerging technologies which we have to contend with, with the challenges posed by President Trump's repeated claims..."

ANI

25,298 views • 1 year ago

With the Russia hoax being exposed more every single day, there is another hoax making its rounds again. Hoax: In 2018 Putin said that he directed his people to help Trump win the election. A short, out of context clip is now their "proof" of Russian election interference to help Trump in 2016. Brennan talked about it. Peter Baker posted about it a couple days ago. Bill Maher played it on his show last night, claiming it was proof of Russian interference to help Trump. It's all over MSNBC and CNN again. They probably all know the truth about the clip but it doesn't stop them from lying about it. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that CNN's clip is different from almost all of the others broadcasted, as you will shortly see. Top clip is the hoax: Putin is asked if he wanted Trump to win and then asked if he directed his officials to help him. Putin answers "yes I did." Here's what actually happened. Putin had just stated that he in no way directed anyone to interfere in the election, that there was no collusion, and that it was all ridiculous nonsense. Putin called the accusations garbage more than once in the press conference. Putin was then asked by a reporter why people should believe his denials about election interference and if he would hand over the 12 people Mueller indicted (show indictments btw). Putin took out his translator ear piece and gave a long answer about working with Trump to find out if crimes were committed, America and Russia working together on other stuff, treaties, etc. During that answer (bottom clip) he again said the accusations of interference were not true. At the end of his answer, the same reporter who asked him the previous questions asked "Did you want Trump to win and did you instruct officials to help him." By watching any other broadcast than CNN, it becomes very clear what happened. Putin did not hear the first half of the reporter's followup question because he was putting on an ear piece and the volume of the reporter's mic was down. Watch the top clip and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip. Look at the difference. You will see it is obvious that Putin did not hear the first question and only heard the second question about if he instructed people to help Trump. It's obvious that he thought it applied to what he was just talking about, which was America and Russia working together. It's so funny how in the foreign broadcasts and some of the American ones, it's clear that Putin didn't hear the first half of the question. But on CNN the volume is magically up and it appears that Putin heard both questions. But the fact is that Putin had just spent most of the press conference denying any interference in the election or collusion with Trump. He wasn't all of a sudden admitting it now. He didn't hear the first question. The hoaxers never play any of the rest of the press conference with all the denials. In another press conference after this one Putin again says it was all a hoax cooked up to undermine Trump's presidency. If the MSM cared at all about America or the truth they would lay out what I just did. If you don't want to watch all the context, just watch the top clip, the beginning of the bottom clip, and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip and you will see clearly what happened.
8:02

With the Russia hoax being exposed more every single day, there is another hoax making its rounds again. Hoax: In 2018 Putin said that he directed his people to help Trump win the election. A short, out of context clip is now their "proof" of Russian election interference to help Trump in 2016. Brennan talked about it. Peter Baker posted about it a couple days ago. Bill Maher played it on his show last night, claiming it was proof of Russian interference to help Trump. It's all over MSNBC and CNN again. They probably all know the truth about the clip but it doesn't stop them from lying about it. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that CNN's clip is different from almost all of the others broadcasted, as you will shortly see. Top clip is the hoax: Putin is asked if he wanted Trump to win and then asked if he directed his officials to help him. Putin answers "yes I did." Here's what actually happened. Putin had just stated that he in no way directed anyone to interfere in the election, that there was no collusion, and that it was all ridiculous nonsense. Putin called the accusations garbage more than once in the press conference. Putin was then asked by a reporter why people should believe his denials about election interference and if he would hand over the 12 people Mueller indicted (show indictments btw). Putin took out his translator ear piece and gave a long answer about working with Trump to find out if crimes were committed, America and Russia working together on other stuff, treaties, etc. During that answer (bottom clip) he again said the accusations of interference were not true. At the end of his answer, the same reporter who asked him the previous questions asked "Did you want Trump to win and did you instruct officials to help him." By watching any other broadcast than CNN, it becomes very clear what happened. Putin did not hear the first half of the reporter's followup question because he was putting on an ear piece and the volume of the reporter's mic was down. Watch the top clip and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip. Look at the difference. You will see it is obvious that Putin did not hear the first question and only heard the second question about if he instructed people to help Trump. It's obvious that he thought it applied to what he was just talking about, which was America and Russia working together. It's so funny how in the foreign broadcasts and some of the American ones, it's clear that Putin didn't hear the first half of the question. But on CNN the volume is magically up and it appears that Putin heard both questions. But the fact is that Putin had just spent most of the press conference denying any interference in the election or collusion with Trump. He wasn't all of a sudden admitting it now. He didn't hear the first question. The hoaxers never play any of the rest of the press conference with all the denials. In another press conference after this one Putin again says it was all a hoax cooked up to undermine Trump's presidency. If the MSM cared at all about America or the truth they would lay out what I just did. If you don't want to watch all the context, just watch the top clip, the beginning of the bottom clip, and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip and you will see clearly what happened.

MAZE

58,564 views • 1 year ago

The former Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs and a professor at SPbSU, Karin Kneissl, raised a critical question regarding the strategic and ethical challenges of modern warfare: "On the modern warfare of drones, which have created such a horrible distance between, let me say, the perpetrator, I don't want to say the soldier, because it's not always a soldier, and the target. There is now a sort of technical, artificial distance, which is creating a new form of cruelty. And we don't anymore have any sort of code of honour between the parties.... How can we handle it? How can it be done or be finished?"
2:46

The former Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs and a professor at SPbSU, Karin Kneissl, raised a critical question regarding the strategic and ethical challenges of modern warfare: "On the modern warfare of drones, which have created such a horrible distance between, let me say, the perpetrator, I don't want to say the soldier, because it's not always a soldier, and the target. There is now a sort of technical, artificial distance, which is creating a new form of cruelty. And we don't anymore have any sort of code of honour between the parties.... How can we handle it? How can it be done or be finished?"

Margarita Simonyan

42,260 views • 2 months ago

Tonight at the Tommy Robinson event in Israel a brave man asked about his article “The Jewish Question”. I have to correct Avi Yemini that the man is right. It was an article on Urban Scoop in 2022 - now deleted. The man was physically attacked. For asking a question.
1:30

Tonight at the Tommy Robinson event in Israel a brave man asked about his article “The Jewish Question”. I have to correct Avi Yemini that the man is right. It was an article on Urban Scoop in 2022 - now deleted. The man was physically attacked. For asking a question.

Heidi Bachram 🎗️

16,542 views • 9 months ago

#KarenReadRetrial The jury in the Read case asked a total of four questions today. The first three were asked and answered around 11am and the jurors were sent back to deliberate. The fourth question though was not answered until after lunch. That question was about a hung jury, specifically "If we find not guilty on two charges but can't agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge?" The question raised some eyebrows as the first trial ended in a hung jury which was then appealed to the Supreme Court with claims from the defense that the first jury had actually acquitted Read on the murder charge. Even more eyebrow raising were Judge Cannone's comments to Alan Jackson that the defense at first told Judge Cannone to ignore the question when it came in. Why in the world would a defense team who appealed a previous hung jury decision all the way to the Supreme Court tell the Judge to ignore a question focused on a hung jury? Something about the question and the defense's initial request to disregard seems very, very off.
0:20

#KarenReadRetrial The jury in the Read case asked a total of four questions today. The first three were asked and answered around 11am and the jurors were sent back to deliberate. The fourth question though was not answered until after lunch. That question was about a hung jury, specifically "If we find not guilty on two charges but can't agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge?" The question raised some eyebrows as the first trial ended in a hung jury which was then appealed to the Supreme Court with claims from the defense that the first jury had actually acquitted Read on the murder charge. Even more eyebrow raising were Judge Cannone's comments to Alan Jackson that the defense at first told Judge Cannone to ignore the question when it came in. Why in the world would a defense team who appealed a previous hung jury decision all the way to the Supreme Court tell the Judge to ignore a question focused on a hung jury? Something about the question and the defense's initial request to disregard seems very, very off.

Julie Carpenter

94,866 views • 1 year ago

#WATCH | Chennai, Tamil Nadu | On being asked about her weight in a press conference, Actress Gouri G Kishan says, "My co-actor was asked, 'We see you picking her up in some romance sequences, how was her weight like'. The second question to the director was that it was a miscasting because the hero is so tall, and I am out of shape or short... He (journalist asking the question) then defended it for a long time... For some people in the presser, women are just there, they should not have an opinion..." (07.11)
2:17

#WATCH | Chennai, Tamil Nadu | On being asked about her weight in a press conference, Actress Gouri G Kishan says, "My co-actor was asked, 'We see you picking her up in some romance sequences, how was her weight like'. The second question to the director was that it was a miscasting because the hero is so tall, and I am out of shape or short... He (journalist asking the question) then defended it for a long time... For some people in the presser, women are just there, they should not have an opinion..." (07.11)

ANI

613,907 views • 9 months ago

Jake Sullivan on Iran: The United States is at war with Iran in the middle of an active shooting war that, in my view, was a war of choice. It did not stem from an imminent threat to the United States. We have yet to hear a clear and distinctive answer to the question: Why? What is this all about and what are we trying to achieve?
1:25

Jake Sullivan on Iran: The United States is at war with Iran in the middle of an active shooting war that, in my view, was a war of choice. It did not stem from an imminent threat to the United States. We have yet to hear a clear and distinctive answer to the question: Why? What is this all about and what are we trying to achieve?

Clash Report

17,487 views • 2 months ago

Just a reminder: the last time an American president met with Putin, it was night and day. No ass-kissing, no groveling—Biden stood tall, faced the press, and answered every damn question. Trump? He tucked tail and ran. Was he too tired? Too embarrassed after sucking up to Putin on the world stage? The press needs to stop being cowards and demand answers.
32:20

Just a reminder: the last time an American president met with Putin, it was night and day. No ass-kissing, no groveling—Biden stood tall, faced the press, and answered every damn question. Trump? He tucked tail and ran. Was he too tired? Too embarrassed after sucking up to Putin on the world stage? The press needs to stop being cowards and demand answers.

Chris D. Jackson

88,381 views • 11 months ago

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.
5:43

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.

Simon Ateba

997,322 views • 2 years ago

Great balance of showing compassion while sharing truth as Wes Huff responds to the question of why a good God would allow evil: "Well, that is arguably the hardest and most pressing apologetic question there is, because ultimately, the very tidy philosophical and theological answer isn't the right answer sometimes. You know, sometimes the right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer, because I've encountered situations where someone has brought up a variation of the problem of evil to me, and I've just felt uneasy about maybe the tenor that they're coming at with the question...and asking them, 'You know, that's a great question. Why are you asking that question in particular?' and finding out once again (like the previous question related to it), they're personally hurting. And so, in that sense, I could give a tidy answer about if you're positing that something is good, you're positing that there's an objective good and evil, and if there's an objective good and evil, then you're positing an objective law, and objective law needs an objective lawgiver. So where do we find the groundwork for an objective lawgiver to begin with? Otherwise, you may not like certain things, but to say they ought not to happen is actually an ethical leap to an objective reality that you may or may not have groundwork for. But if that person is struggling because a family member of theirs has cancer, then that particular, maybe tidy, tied-up-in-a-nice-bow answer is not going to speak to them whatsoever. And so that's why that's the hardest question because there are actually very good answers to it, but often it doesn't speak to the person in front of you, because questions have questioners that sit behind them. And one of the pitfalls of my chosen field of ministry apologetics is that sometimes we give answers where we talk at people rather than with people. And there's a danger to that because the Christian faith isn't just an intellectual assent, right? It's a personal relationship. And that should also be played out in the answers that we give..."
3:18

Great balance of showing compassion while sharing truth as Wes Huff responds to the question of why a good God would allow evil: "Well, that is arguably the hardest and most pressing apologetic question there is, because ultimately, the very tidy philosophical and theological answer isn't the right answer sometimes. You know, sometimes the right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer, because I've encountered situations where someone has brought up a variation of the problem of evil to me, and I've just felt uneasy about maybe the tenor that they're coming at with the question...and asking them, 'You know, that's a great question. Why are you asking that question in particular?' and finding out once again (like the previous question related to it), they're personally hurting. And so, in that sense, I could give a tidy answer about if you're positing that something is good, you're positing that there's an objective good and evil, and if there's an objective good and evil, then you're positing an objective law, and objective law needs an objective lawgiver. So where do we find the groundwork for an objective lawgiver to begin with? Otherwise, you may not like certain things, but to say they ought not to happen is actually an ethical leap to an objective reality that you may or may not have groundwork for. But if that person is struggling because a family member of theirs has cancer, then that particular, maybe tidy, tied-up-in-a-nice-bow answer is not going to speak to them whatsoever. And so that's why that's the hardest question because there are actually very good answers to it, but often it doesn't speak to the person in front of you, because questions have questioners that sit behind them. And one of the pitfalls of my chosen field of ministry apologetics is that sometimes we give answers where we talk at people rather than with people. And there's a danger to that because the Christian faith isn't just an intellectual assent, right? It's a personal relationship. And that should also be played out in the answers that we give..."

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

116,026 views • 3 months ago

Dalia Grybauskaitė, former President of Lithuania: I first met Putin in Helsinki in 2010. For us, the gas price from Russia was a huge question. We fully depended on gas supplies from Russia. And we had been paying about 30–40% more than Germany was paying, for example. For a neighboring country where the pipelines are some 2,000 km closer, we were paying so much. During the meeting, Putin read me a list of what Lithuania was supposed to do, and it was clear to me that it was about obedience, about surrendering. It was clear to me that with countries neighboring Russia, you either kneel or you are the enemy, and you have nothing in between. Of course, I was not able to accept these requests. After this meeting, I understood that Lithuania needed to get rid of its dependency on energy from Russia. We moved very quickly to build an LNG terminal. We were the first in Europe to do this at that time. By the end of 2014, we had an LNG terminal. This allowed us to fully cut our dependency on Russian gas and Gazprom in Lithuania, and even to help our neighbors in Latvia and Estonia.
1:21

Dalia Grybauskaitė, former President of Lithuania: I first met Putin in Helsinki in 2010. For us, the gas price from Russia was a huge question. We fully depended on gas supplies from Russia. And we had been paying about 30–40% more than Germany was paying, for example. For a neighboring country where the pipelines are some 2,000 km closer, we were paying so much. During the meeting, Putin read me a list of what Lithuania was supposed to do, and it was clear to me that it was about obedience, about surrendering. It was clear to me that with countries neighboring Russia, you either kneel or you are the enemy, and you have nothing in between. Of course, I was not able to accept these requests. After this meeting, I understood that Lithuania needed to get rid of its dependency on energy from Russia. We moved very quickly to build an LNG terminal. We were the first in Europe to do this at that time. By the end of 2014, we had an LNG terminal. This allowed us to fully cut our dependency on Russian gas and Gazprom in Lithuania, and even to help our neighbors in Latvia and Estonia.

Kate from Kharkiv

593,056 views • 8 days ago

💣🤬Beyond disappointed in the Eagles media covering the @NickSirianni weekly news conference today. ❗️Not ONE question about the struggles of QB Jalen Hurts in the passing game. How can that question not be asked, yet the question about changing play callers is asked a lot❓ 🏈 The media and fans keep on criticizing OC Kevin Patullo, and it’s not his fault. 🦅The #Eagles obviously have issues on offense, but it never seems to be the players and always the questions about changing play caller.
1:02

💣🤬Beyond disappointed in the Eagles media covering the @NickSirianni weekly news conference today. ❗️Not ONE question about the struggles of QB Jalen Hurts in the passing game. How can that question not be asked, yet the question about changing play callers is asked a lot❓ 🏈 The media and fans keep on criticizing OC Kevin Patullo, and it’s not his fault. 🦅The #Eagles obviously have issues on offense, but it never seems to be the players and always the questions about changing play caller.

Howard Eskin

40,205 views • 8 months ago

BREAKING: Attorney General Pam Bondi addresses Epstein memo questions after reporter grills her on missing prison footage and intel rumors. During Trump’s cabinet meeting, a reporter put Bondi on the spot: “Your memo released yesterday on Jeffrey Epstein left some lingering mysteries. One of the biggest ones is whether he ever worked for an American or foreign intelligence agency.” “So could you resolve whether or not he did? And also, could you say why there was a minute missing from the jailhouse tape?” President Trump jumped in immediately: “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?! This guy’s been talked about for years. We have Texas, we have this. We have all of the things. And are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable. Do you want to waste the time? And do you feel like answering?” Bondi replied: “I don’t mind answering.” Trump, clearly irritated, added: “I mean, I can’t believe you’re asking a question on Epstein at a time like this when we’re having some of the greatest success.” Bondi then laid it all out: “First, to back up on that, in February, I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed. Meaning, the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that.” “Also, to the tens of thousands of videos—they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. Child porn is what they were—NEVER going to be released. Never going to see the light of day.” “To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that. We can get back to you on that.” “And the minute missing from the video, we released the video showing definitively the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was, showing he committed suicide.” “And what was on that, there was a minute that was off the counter. And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year—every night they redo that video. It was old from like 1999, so every night the video is reset.” “And every night should have the same minute missing. So we're looking for that video to release that as well, showing that a minute is missing every night.” “And THAT’S IT on Epstein.”
2:30

BREAKING: Attorney General Pam Bondi addresses Epstein memo questions after reporter grills her on missing prison footage and intel rumors. During Trump’s cabinet meeting, a reporter put Bondi on the spot: “Your memo released yesterday on Jeffrey Epstein left some lingering mysteries. One of the biggest ones is whether he ever worked for an American or foreign intelligence agency.” “So could you resolve whether or not he did? And also, could you say why there was a minute missing from the jailhouse tape?” President Trump jumped in immediately: “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?! This guy’s been talked about for years. We have Texas, we have this. We have all of the things. And are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable. Do you want to waste the time? And do you feel like answering?” Bondi replied: “I don’t mind answering.” Trump, clearly irritated, added: “I mean, I can’t believe you’re asking a question on Epstein at a time like this when we’re having some of the greatest success.” Bondi then laid it all out: “First, to back up on that, in February, I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed. Meaning, the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that.” “Also, to the tens of thousands of videos—they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. Child porn is what they were—NEVER going to be released. Never going to see the light of day.” “To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that. We can get back to you on that.” “And the minute missing from the video, we released the video showing definitively the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was, showing he committed suicide.” “And what was on that, there was a minute that was off the counter. And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year—every night they redo that video. It was old from like 1999, so every night the video is reset.” “And every night should have the same minute missing. So we're looking for that video to release that as well, showing that a minute is missing every night.” “And THAT’S IT on Epstein.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

83,874 views • 1 year ago

Candace is talking about people lying here while she herself is lying. She didn’t “very gently” say Charlie was close to converting to Catholicism. Less than a week after his murder, she explicitly said he was “too smart to be Protestant,” deciding to make it all about her and her conversion to the Catholic faith. One of the last things Charlie said at UVU the day he died was that he was an evangelical. The question before the trans shooter question was from a Mormon who wanted to ask about Mormonism and Charlie said he was an evangelical but he respected Mormons. So can we stop lying? Can we stop rewriting history? Can we stop using Charlie as a pawn and stop speaking on things only his wife should be speaking on, and that’s if she wants to? I couldn’t care less if Charlie was becoming Catholic, but it’s clear he wasn’t, or he would’ve said that. Candace’s only evidence for it is a vague text from him dated February 2024. Just stop.
0:37

Candace is talking about people lying here while she herself is lying. She didn’t “very gently” say Charlie was close to converting to Catholicism. Less than a week after his murder, she explicitly said he was “too smart to be Protestant,” deciding to make it all about her and her conversion to the Catholic faith. One of the last things Charlie said at UVU the day he died was that he was an evangelical. The question before the trans shooter question was from a Mormon who wanted to ask about Mormonism and Charlie said he was an evangelical but he respected Mormons. So can we stop lying? Can we stop rewriting history? Can we stop using Charlie as a pawn and stop speaking on things only his wife should be speaking on, and that’s if she wants to? I couldn’t care less if Charlie was becoming Catholic, but it’s clear he wasn’t, or he would’ve said that. Candace’s only evidence for it is a vague text from him dated February 2024. Just stop.

Natalie Jean Beisner

27,411 views • 9 months ago

Carl Sagan explains why a child’s simple question may be deeper than most adults realize. “Mommy, why is the grass green?” And very often the child gets an answer like: “Oh, who knows?” But that is not a silly question. It is an extremely profound question. Because hidden inside it are the fundamentals of biology, light, chemistry, and physics. How much better it would be to say: “That’s a good question.” “Maybe we can look it up.” “Maybe when you grow up, you can find the answer.” The tragedy is that many children learn the wrong lesson. They learn that asking deep questions is somehow bad. And when that happens, we lose something precious. We lose intellectual resources. We lose curiosity. We lose future thinkers. Because the complex and subtle problems we face can only be solved by people capable of complex and subtle thoughts. A child’s question is not an interruption. Sometimes, it is the beginning of science.
0:57

Carl Sagan explains why a child’s simple question may be deeper than most adults realize. “Mommy, why is the grass green?” And very often the child gets an answer like: “Oh, who knows?” But that is not a silly question. It is an extremely profound question. Because hidden inside it are the fundamentals of biology, light, chemistry, and physics. How much better it would be to say: “That’s a good question.” “Maybe we can look it up.” “Maybe when you grow up, you can find the answer.” The tragedy is that many children learn the wrong lesson. They learn that asking deep questions is somehow bad. And when that happens, we lose something precious. We lose intellectual resources. We lose curiosity. We lose future thinkers. Because the complex and subtle problems we face can only be solved by people capable of complex and subtle thoughts. A child’s question is not an interruption. Sometimes, it is the beginning of science.

Prof. Carl Sagan

25,102 views • 1 month ago

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.
7:30

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

Stefan.

2,173,449 views • 5 days ago

The one thing we absolutely know with certainty about the Richat Structure is that there was an incredible amount of human activity here from the dawn of toolmaking and tool use itself. The Acheulean Hand Axe is the second tool that humans ever made and this technology spread throughout Africa, Europe and Asia while no definitive evidence exists that this technology ever made it to the Americas. I think this is evidence that this technology was shared and disseminated intentionally, that neighboring humans didn’t come up with this independently on their own but this was a legacy, an institution, a skill and an industry that was shared and taught. It is perhaps the earliest evidence we have of widespread cultural diffusion throughout Africa, Europe and Asia. And yes, it’s right there at the Richat Structure which leads me to question the role that the Richat played to humans half a million years ago. It seems like that’s where we have to start with the Richat.
0:13

The one thing we absolutely know with certainty about the Richat Structure is that there was an incredible amount of human activity here from the dawn of toolmaking and tool use itself. The Acheulean Hand Axe is the second tool that humans ever made and this technology spread throughout Africa, Europe and Asia while no definitive evidence exists that this technology ever made it to the Americas. I think this is evidence that this technology was shared and disseminated intentionally, that neighboring humans didn’t come up with this independently on their own but this was a legacy, an institution, a skill and an industry that was shared and taught. It is perhaps the earliest evidence we have of widespread cultural diffusion throughout Africa, Europe and Asia. And yes, it’s right there at the Richat Structure which leads me to question the role that the Richat played to humans half a million years ago. It seems like that’s where we have to start with the Richat.

Archaic Lens

35,584 views • 9 months ago

Holy cow people the question wasn’t great, but just answer it man. It’s reactive in those scrums, everyone maneuvering for the mic, and candidly, it’s nervy asking questions close up to them. It kind of reminded me of this at the Players. I saw it happen and it left an impression. He was talking about testing other drivers on the range, but stuck with it on Thursday. The reporter followed up and asked him “Are you sticking with it?” I’m appreciative that this part of it is not something he asked for. To stand there, after a round that demanded full attention, and answer a few sub-par questions sucks. Tough part of the job. But the others guys job is follow him around the course all day and ask 1 question, and you don’t have to embarrass that guy either. I’m certain he’s not a jerk. He’s the best in the game, and a faith oriented family man and I love that. But this kind of stuff comes off with arrogance to me 🤷‍♂️
0:25

Holy cow people the question wasn’t great, but just answer it man. It’s reactive in those scrums, everyone maneuvering for the mic, and candidly, it’s nervy asking questions close up to them. It kind of reminded me of this at the Players. I saw it happen and it left an impression. He was talking about testing other drivers on the range, but stuck with it on Thursday. The reporter followed up and asked him “Are you sticking with it?” I’m appreciative that this part of it is not something he asked for. To stand there, after a round that demanded full attention, and answer a few sub-par questions sucks. Tough part of the job. But the others guys job is follow him around the course all day and ask 1 question, and you don’t have to embarrass that guy either. I’m certain he’s not a jerk. He’s the best in the game, and a faith oriented family man and I love that. But this kind of stuff comes off with arrogance to me 🤷‍♂️

Joe I

130,898 views • 3 months ago