Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

So we're supposed to forget everything just because the script has changed? The same people who dismissed the Gen Z push for better governance, cheered on the broad-based arrangement, and helped create today's political confusion now want to rebrand themselves as champions of wananchi. That's quite a transformation. As...

13,738 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

#WATCH | Delhi | On CJP protest, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "When a non-violent protest is taking place, what is the reason for a lathi-charge? Lathi charge is not an act of non-violence. It is an act of violence. I don't understand the logic of this. Similarly here in Parliament, everyone knows these are burning issues across the country. It would be logical to have a discussion on them. Parliament is supposed to be the place where we can ventilate the voice of the people, the concerns of the people. Once we do that, we all know the government has a majority. As the old saying goes, the Opposition must have its say because the government will have its way. They have the majority. But at least let parliament be a forum where these concerns can be heard, can be truly ventilated and voiced, where various people can represent the views of their constituents. Then the government can disagree. But right now, just refusing a discussion is what has led to today's disruption because the opposition wanted these issues up there, wanted an opportunity to talk about them on the floor of the house. If Parliament is not for raising these issues, then honestly, what is it for? I mean, it can't just be a sort of notice board for the government to announce its bills and get them passed with a rubber stamp. That's not what Parliament is all about. It should be a forum where all these views can be heard, discussed, debated as necessary and then passed. The Prime Minister has sought cooperation from the opposition. We'll cooperate if they cooperate. The idea should be that there should be mutual cooperation. Let them permit certain discussions. This has got to be give and take. That's the way Parliament is supposed to function."

ANI

317,101 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

Vivek Ramaswamy message to YouTube is actually a much more important message about Free Speech “This is a message for the leadership of YouTube — My understanding is in the last 24 hours, you locked the accounts and shut down the accounts of two guys, Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones. They have big followings on the American right. I think it's better if you just unlock those accounts and let the guys be heard. —The reason I'm asking you to do it is that censorship isn't good for America. It's antithetical to our culture, and we're the country on God's green Earth where we're able to talk to each other in the open I want to credit YouTube and Google and your parent company and so much of your competitors in Silicon Valley for creating the first instance of the free and open internet with search engines. It's a beautiful thing for democratizing speech. But I think we take a step in the wrong direction when we choke those same technologies that allow us to access open debate and open ideas. It breeds discontent. It breeds frustration. It actually breeds mistrust. If you tell people they can't speak, that's when they scream. And if you tell people they can't scream, that's when they tear things down. So I think pre- free speech is a precondition for peace. It's a precondition for the scientific method. It's a precondition for our shared unity, our shared national identity as Americans. — It's the question of whether this is good or bad for America, and I think we live in a moment right now where when we tell people, whether it's the government or even a powerful company, when you tell people that because of who you are, you deserve not to be heard, I think that actually divides us. Even if it's done with the best of intentions of thinking it brings most of the rest of the country together, in the long run, it actually throws kerosene on the very flame you were trying to, to quash. — It's not even about the content. It's about the principle. I'd ask you to restore the accounts of those guys and believe me, it will be a down payment on beginning to reunite this country, a project on which we have yet a very long way to go. Thanks a lot for considering.”

Wall Street Apes

79,456 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

When I am at the gym and I see somebody’s water bottle there or a towel or something. I know they just stepped away for a moment and that the machine is occupied. Out of respect I won’t move it out of the way only for them to come back and have to explain themselves anyways. This young lady on the machine left her water bottle on it because she stepped away for a moment to use the restroom only for somebody else to come by and try to use it in her place. Would you have understood the etiquette or is it just a free for all? When I first started working out I was unfamiliar with the gym etiquette. Some people just got done with a hard set and need to stand up and walk for a few moneys or get a drink of water and they use it as their rest period so that they can go back at it. Interrupting that process is the same thing as booting them off the machine mid workout. It’s rude and uncalled for but why does it keep happening? I think what it is, is that some people are very judgmental, they see others and think that they are more serious about working out than the other person so that to them it means they are entitled to use it first because their workouts are more important. I used to let them do that to me but no more. I treat it as first come first serve, if they don’t want to wait then maybe they need to avoid the gym during peak hours. This is the very reason I work out in the middle of the night most of the time. I rather not be bothered and if I need to take my time I can, most of the time nobody else is even there anyways when I go.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

176,262 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

The Circle (2000, Panahi)/ Iran "Political movies have limited time. After that time, it doesn’t say anything anymore. But if the whole thing is said in an artistic way, then it doesn’t have an expiration date." --- Jafar Panahi Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: The subject matter of 'The Circle' (2000) is controversial. You mentioned that the film is still banned in Iran. In fact, when I was watching the film, I realized that through the characters, there’s a lot of fear about the system, the establishment, the police. The women can’t smoke; they have to wear the chador; they seem to want to hide every time. This is all very clear from watching the film. Did you deliberately want to make a statement about the political situation in Iran? Panahi: I have to tell you again that I’m not a political person. I don’t like political movies. But I take every opportunity to comment on the social issues. I talk about the current issues. To me it’s not important what is the reason for what has happened. Whether it’s political reasons or geographical reasons: these are not important—but the condition, the social issues. It is important to me to talk about the plight of humanity at that time. I don’t want to give a political view, or start a political war. I think that the artist should rise above this. Political movies have limited time. After that time, it doesn’t say anything anymore. But if the whole thing is said in an artistic way, then it doesn’t have an expiration date. So it doesn’t really serve a political purpose. Then it can be everlasting, for always, and it could be for anywhere. But I know that politically, with the film authorities, with any kind of film that has some political background in it, they would take issue with it. And for this reason, that is what the problem is. Interviewer: Still, your film makes a very strong statement about the problems that women face in Iran. Panahi: Yes, I agree with that. Interviewer: So that is humanitarian, of course, but it’s also political. Panahi: Yes, I agree with that. It has the elements. It all depends on how you look at it. If a person has only political views, then he will only see the political. But if you are a poet or an artist, then you see other things as well in the movie. If you are a socialist, you see political or economic or whatever different points of view. You mustn’t look at a film with only one point of view. If you want to see 'The Circle' (2000) as political, then it is one of the most political movies in Iran. By political, I mean partisan politics. But even the police, I didn’t want to show them as bad. In the first instance, you are afraid of the police. Because you are looking at them from the point of view of someone who is now in prison. And normally you see him in a long shot, but when they come nearer and you see them in a medium shot, you can see their human faces. Then it comes down to, “Do you need any help?” But he goes back again and becomes frightening. If I were being political, then I would always show the police as dangerous or bad persons." (Jafar Panahi's interview with Stephen Teo, Senses of Cinema, 2001)

DepressedBergman

43,871 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten