Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Speaker 2: “Chelsea are having a right go again, aren’t they?” Speaker 1: “Yeah.” Speaker 2: “What’s their spending up to now since Todd Boehly came in? It must be billions.” Speaker 1: “Yeah, telephone numbers, isn’t it? Even this summer, £117 million for Morgan Rogers and £52 million... now for Maxence Lacroix. “And I don’t think they’re finished there. There’s a lot of talk that they want a midfielder. Bruno Guimarães was doing the rounds, but Chelsea sort of denied that. “And you’re right, another striker is needed as well.” Speaker 2: “How can you spend billions of pounds and still not have a world-class striker?” Speaker 1: “And arguably a goalkeeper as well. There are still question marks over Robert Sánchez. “João Pedro is decent, but I don’t think he’s world-class. He was really unlucky not to get into the Brazil squad. When you look at that Brazil team that stunk the place out at the World Cup, I wonder what João Pedro was thinking while sitting on a beach somewhere.”show more

SHAYEE 𒀭

52,111 subscribers

44,740 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Speaker 1: Mark my words, I think Morgan Rogers will perform very well, especially playing alongside Cole Palmer, whom he has played with before. Speaker 3: Rogers? Speaker 1: Yes. Rogers and Palmer playing behind the striker could be amazing. Speaker 2: I understand that. If Chelsea play with three defenders and use Rogers and Palmer behind the striker, it could work brilliantly. Speaker 3: But Rogers could also have played on the left for Arsenal and drifted inside. Speaker 4: Arsenal already have about four attacking midfielders, so they do not really need another one. Speaker 5: Stop sounding salty. You needed him that’s why he was your top target and he rejected your small club

Speaker 1: Mark my words, I think Morgan Rogers will perform very well, especially playing alongside Cole Palmer, whom he has played with before. Speaker 3: Rogers? Speaker 1: Yes. Rogers and Palmer playing behind the striker could be amazing. Speaker 2: I understand that. If Chelsea play with three defenders and use Rogers and Palmer behind the striker, it could work brilliantly. Speaker 3: But Rogers could also have played on the left for Arsenal and drifted inside. Speaker 4: Arsenal already have about four attacking midfielders, so they do not really need another one. Speaker 5: Stop sounding salty. You needed him that’s why he was your top target and he rejected your small club

SHAYEE 𒀭

29,280 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

“Nine seconds?!Bonnie blue reveals the wildest reason some guys finish almost instantly.” Speaker 1: How quickly do virgins generally finish? Speaker 2: My shortest video was nine seconds. As soon as he got started, he finished. Speaker 3: I've done that before. I've even finished in my pants. Speaker 2: My favorite was during spring break. I was dancing on stage with a guy, and he finished almost immediately. Speaker 3: You have the Thanos hand—you can just make it happen. Speaker 2: Not always. Sometimes they're too nervous, or they've done something beforehand. Speaker 1: Are you annoyed when they can't finish? Speaker 2: No, but it gets exhausting. I'm running out of options and getting tired. Speaker 1: An hour and a half in? Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm like, "Whew..."

Sensitive content

“Nine seconds?!Bonnie blue reveals the wildest reason some guys finish almost instantly.” Speaker 1: How quickly do virgins generally finish? Speaker 2: My shortest video was nine seconds. As soon as he got started, he finished. Speaker 3: I've done that before. I've even finished in my pants. Speaker 2: My favorite was during spring break. I was dancing on stage with a guy, and he finished almost immediately. Speaker 3: You have the Thanos hand—you can just make it happen. Speaker 2: Not always. Sometimes they're too nervous, or they've done something beforehand. Speaker 1: Are you annoyed when they can't finish? Speaker 2: No, but it gets exhausting. I'm running out of options and getting tired. Speaker 1: An hour and a half in? Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm like, "Whew..."

osaze

643,666 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Trans Rights Debate Gets HEATED When a Cancer Treatment Hypothetical Exposes a Major Contradiction Speaker 1: Do you think conversion therapy should be legal for gay kids? Should parents be allowed to put their children through it? Speaker 2: If that’s considered a form of care, that’s a decision between the child and their doctor. It’s not my decision to make. I care about bodily autonomy. Speaker 1: Most Democrats think it should be illegal. Speaker 2: I’m not speaking for most Democrats. Speaker 3: Then do you support fundamentalist Christian parents refusing cancer treatment for their children because it’s between them and their doctor? Speaker 2: That’s a far-off example. You’re derailing the conversation. Speaker 3: It’s a thought experiment. I’m testing the principle you’re using. If parents have the right to choose any treatment for their child, do they also have the right to refuse treatment? Speaker 2: I’m not going to engage with a fictional scenario about kids and cancer. Speaker 3: But this actually happens. There are religious parents who refuse medical treatment for their children. Speaker 2: Then give me some stats and a source. Speaker 3: I don’t have the stats. Speaker 2: Exactly. So I’ll move on. You and I may disagree on policy, but I believe people’s rights shouldn’t depend on whether others think their identity is valid. Trans people need government protection, especially because they’re among the most vulnerable groups. Speaker 3: There are already protections for employment discrimination. What about trans women playing in women’s sports? Is that a civil right? Speaker 2: Yes. I think girls should be able to play whatever sport they want. I’m an athlete, and my sport has never been challenged by a trans person. I think focusing on less than 1% of the population in sports is a non-issue. If we want to talk about real problems, let’s talk about healthcare access. Speaker 3: I’m asking about your knowledge of the topic, not your personal experience.

Trans Rights Debate Gets HEATED When a Cancer Treatment Hypothetical Exposes a Major Contradiction Speaker 1: Do you think conversion therapy should be legal for gay kids? Should parents be allowed to put their children through it? Speaker 2: If that’s considered a form of care, that’s a decision between the child and their doctor. It’s not my decision to make. I care about bodily autonomy. Speaker 1: Most Democrats think it should be illegal. Speaker 2: I’m not speaking for most Democrats. Speaker 3: Then do you support fundamentalist Christian parents refusing cancer treatment for their children because it’s between them and their doctor? Speaker 2: That’s a far-off example. You’re derailing the conversation. Speaker 3: It’s a thought experiment. I’m testing the principle you’re using. If parents have the right to choose any treatment for their child, do they also have the right to refuse treatment? Speaker 2: I’m not going to engage with a fictional scenario about kids and cancer. Speaker 3: But this actually happens. There are religious parents who refuse medical treatment for their children. Speaker 2: Then give me some stats and a source. Speaker 3: I don’t have the stats. Speaker 2: Exactly. So I’ll move on. You and I may disagree on policy, but I believe people’s rights shouldn’t depend on whether others think their identity is valid. Trans people need government protection, especially because they’re among the most vulnerable groups. Speaker 3: There are already protections for employment discrimination. What about trans women playing in women’s sports? Is that a civil right? Speaker 2: Yes. I think girls should be able to play whatever sport they want. I’m an athlete, and my sport has never been challenged by a trans person. I think focusing on less than 1% of the population in sports is a non-issue. If we want to talk about real problems, let’s talk about healthcare access. Speaker 3: I’m asking about your knowledge of the topic, not your personal experience.

Jeff

18,402 просмотров • 27 дней назад

Violet Myers first experience changed everything… until being with women completely changed her perspective about oral sex Speaker 1: I just didn't like receiving oral sex, so I found pleasure in other things. Speaker 2: You still don't like it? Speaker 1: Actually, I got used to it and now I enjoy it sometimes. Speaker 2: What made you more into it? Speaker 1: Being with women. I had a bad first experience when I was younger, and I wasn't ready for it. Speaker 2: So that experience ruined it for you? Speaker 1: Yeah, but as I got older, I realized it wasn't so bad. Speaker 2: I enjoy it more with women because there's more intimacy. Women understand a woman's body better. Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel the same way. We understand what feels good because we know our own bodies.

Violet Myers first experience changed everything… until being with women completely changed her perspective about oral sex Speaker 1: I just didn't like receiving oral sex, so I found pleasure in other things. Speaker 2: You still don't like it? Speaker 1: Actually, I got used to it and now I enjoy it sometimes. Speaker 2: What made you more into it? Speaker 1: Being with women. I had a bad first experience when I was younger, and I wasn't ready for it. Speaker 2: So that experience ruined it for you? Speaker 1: Yeah, but as I got older, I realized it wasn't so bad. Speaker 2: I enjoy it more with women because there's more intimacy. Women understand a woman's body better. Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel the same way. We understand what feels good because we know our own bodies.

osaze

88,571 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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

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

Congress

112,838 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Speaker 1: "From what we understand, Arsenal's next priority is Bruno Guimarães. If they really wanted Morgan Rogers, why didn't they just pay it? £85 million for a player coming into 29 is, in terms of value, arguably more than paying £117 million for a 23-year-old. I can only imagine, Lee, that Arsenal looked at the price of Rogers and thought either he's way too expensive and they can get better elsewhere with that money, or they didn't really want him and weren't actually seriously looking at him. One of those two things has to be true." Lee Gunner: "Because Rodgers, let's be real. Harry Symeou was on talkSPORT todaybig up Tim and he said there were only two options: I stay at Aston Villa or I go to Chelsea. Because Arsenal didn't come in." Speaker 1: "So he didn't choose Chelsea over Arsenal?" Lee Gunner: "Exactly that. He never had that choice. People are saying Arsenal was an option, but it wasn't. With all these player contracts and everything else, if a club comes in and agrees to pay the asking price, that's what matters. You can't just turn around and say, 'I don't want to go there, I want to go somewhere else,' if that other club hasn't actually come in for you."

Speaker 1: "From what we understand, Arsenal's next priority is Bruno Guimarães. If they really wanted Morgan Rogers, why didn't they just pay it? £85 million for a player coming into 29 is, in terms of value, arguably more than paying £117 million for a 23-year-old. I can only imagine, Lee, that Arsenal looked at the price of Rogers and thought either he's way too expensive and they can get better elsewhere with that money, or they didn't really want him and weren't actually seriously looking at him. One of those two things has to be true." Lee Gunner: "Because Rodgers, let's be real. Harry Symeou was on talkSPORT todaybig up Tim and he said there were only two options: I stay at Aston Villa or I go to Chelsea. Because Arsenal didn't come in." Speaker 1: "So he didn't choose Chelsea over Arsenal?" Lee Gunner: "Exactly that. He never had that choice. People are saying Arsenal was an option, but it wasn't. With all these player contracts and everything else, if a club comes in and agrees to pay the asking price, that's what matters. You can't just turn around and say, 'I don't want to go there, I want to go somewhere else,' if that other club hasn't actually come in for you."

SHAYEE 𒀭

55,730 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Seven years too late, but it's great to see the issue of 'missing' Deputy Speaker in #LokSabha finally being debated in House! As MP Mohd. Jawed moved the resolution to remove Om Birla as Speaker of #LokSabha, MP Asaduddin Owaisi (Asaduddin Owaisi) raises a very fundamental point - when such a motion has been moved against the Speaker, who has the authority to preside? There is no Deputy Speaker in House & no sense of the House was taken to determine if Jagdambika Pal (who is in the Chair) can preside in terms of Article 95(2) (see video) MP Nishikant Dubey interprets Article 95(2) to say that House has determined as per rules and procedure that Jagdambika Pal. Then, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju jumps in and says that the point is unnecessary, already a ruling has been given. However, it can be argued that Article 95(2) should have no application here, because it talks about Speaker and Deputy Speaker being 'absent'. Article 95(1) is the appropriate Article to be invoked here which talks about 'vacancy' in office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. A combined reading of both 95(1) and 95(2) - Speaker is absent but post of Deputy Speaker is vacant - so who should preside? Contd..

Seven years too late, but it's great to see the issue of 'missing' Deputy Speaker in #LokSabha finally being debated in House! As MP Mohd. Jawed moved the resolution to remove Om Birla as Speaker of #LokSabha, MP Asaduddin Owaisi (Asaduddin Owaisi) raises a very fundamental point - when such a motion has been moved against the Speaker, who has the authority to preside? There is no Deputy Speaker in House & no sense of the House was taken to determine if Jagdambika Pal (who is in the Chair) can preside in terms of Article 95(2) (see video) MP Nishikant Dubey interprets Article 95(2) to say that House has determined as per rules and procedure that Jagdambika Pal. Then, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju jumps in and says that the point is unnecessary, already a ruling has been given. However, it can be argued that Article 95(2) should have no application here, because it talks about Speaker and Deputy Speaker being 'absent'. Article 95(1) is the appropriate Article to be invoked here which talks about 'vacancy' in office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. A combined reading of both 95(1) and 95(2) - Speaker is absent but post of Deputy Speaker is vacant - so who should preside? Contd..

Maadhyam

23,030 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

“Ayaan Hirsi Ali was challenged over her views on Islam and Sharia law… but the debate quickly turned explosive.” Speaker: Ayaan, you've been quoted as saying that if refugees are coming to this part of the world and bringing their misogynistic views on Sharia law, then they'd better just take a legal U-turn. People have said Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Donald Trump are speaking the same language. So how do you feel about being on the same side as Trump? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I've been doing this for about the last 14 or 15 years, and maybe I'm allowed a sigh. Because number one, I'm amazed at the betrayal of Muslim women who, for whatever reason, have had an education and are able to emancipate themselves from Islamic law, insisting that Islamic law is not what it is and that we don't understand it. We live in the Information Age. We are literate. Any of us here can pick up the Holy Quran and read the Hadith. And beyond that, because we live in this age of interconnectedness, we can take a look at the facts of where Islamic law is implemented, what it looks like for everyone, and typically what it looks like for women. Saudi Arabia is a country that implements Sharia law. Women are not allowed to drive. They have male guardians. Their testimony is worth half of that of men. They are subjected to every possible humiliation that you can think of. Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979, with a great deal of public approval, became the Supreme Leader. He implemented Sharia law, Islamic law. One of the first things that he did, he reduced the age of marriage to nine. Everywhere where Islamic law is implemented, you have exactly that. Speaker: Who's the "they"? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Those who are pushing for Sharia law and those who want to implement Sharia law. Speaker: But none of us are, so that's not a matter of debate. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: The Prophet Muhammad took Aisha, one of his wives after Khadijah died, when she was six, and had sex with her when she was nine. That is Sharia law. I do not understand how someone Speaker: But this is not a debate about Sharia law. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: But this is for Sharia law! You want to get rid of child marriage? Get rid of Sharia law. Speaker: Although it embarrasses me on a global stage to say this, child marriage is common in many cultures, including in Hindu societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: That's why Can I just get in? Speaker: All right, I just want to bring in Farah and Hibaaq. What you are saying, Ayaan, doesn't really make sense. I'm glad that you have moved from calling for a war on Islam to saying maybe there is a possibility. In 2007, when you had that interview with Reason magazine, you said we have to go to war with Islam. That was shocking for a woman to be advocating for that. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Can I answer that? Speaker: Let her have a sentence. Hibaaq Osman: For someone who has actually asked for Islam to be defeated militarily, I am really surprised that you are still saying the same things. And now you are backpedaling Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Islamic law. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Islamic law Hibaaq Osman: You cannot come here to talk about reform that does not exist. Speaker: Okay, I'll tell you one thing: none of these women are constrained by their religion. Hibaaq Osman: No, my point is you cannot reform anything if you don't have the credibility. The fact that you said we have to defeat Islam, you surrendered your credibility. Speaker: Okay, let me get my point in. Hibaaq Osman: There's no time. But the point is, those who claim to be able to reform their society have to be in their society.

“Ayaan Hirsi Ali was challenged over her views on Islam and Sharia law… but the debate quickly turned explosive.” Speaker: Ayaan, you've been quoted as saying that if refugees are coming to this part of the world and bringing their misogynistic views on Sharia law, then they'd better just take a legal U-turn. People have said Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Donald Trump are speaking the same language. So how do you feel about being on the same side as Trump? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I've been doing this for about the last 14 or 15 years, and maybe I'm allowed a sigh. Because number one, I'm amazed at the betrayal of Muslim women who, for whatever reason, have had an education and are able to emancipate themselves from Islamic law, insisting that Islamic law is not what it is and that we don't understand it. We live in the Information Age. We are literate. Any of us here can pick up the Holy Quran and read the Hadith. And beyond that, because we live in this age of interconnectedness, we can take a look at the facts of where Islamic law is implemented, what it looks like for everyone, and typically what it looks like for women. Saudi Arabia is a country that implements Sharia law. Women are not allowed to drive. They have male guardians. Their testimony is worth half of that of men. They are subjected to every possible humiliation that you can think of. Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979, with a great deal of public approval, became the Supreme Leader. He implemented Sharia law, Islamic law. One of the first things that he did, he reduced the age of marriage to nine. Everywhere where Islamic law is implemented, you have exactly that. Speaker: Who's the "they"? Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Those who are pushing for Sharia law and those who want to implement Sharia law. Speaker: But none of us are, so that's not a matter of debate. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: The Prophet Muhammad took Aisha, one of his wives after Khadijah died, when she was six, and had sex with her when she was nine. That is Sharia law. I do not understand how someone Speaker: But this is not a debate about Sharia law. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: But this is for Sharia law! You want to get rid of child marriage? Get rid of Sharia law. Speaker: Although it embarrasses me on a global stage to say this, child marriage is common in many cultures, including in Hindu societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: That's why Can I just get in? Speaker: All right, I just want to bring in Farah and Hibaaq. What you are saying, Ayaan, doesn't really make sense. I'm glad that you have moved from calling for a war on Islam to saying maybe there is a possibility. In 2007, when you had that interview with Reason magazine, you said we have to go to war with Islam. That was shocking for a woman to be advocating for that. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Can I answer that? Speaker: Let her have a sentence. Hibaaq Osman: For someone who has actually asked for Islam to be defeated militarily, I am really surprised that you are still saying the same things. And now you are backpedaling Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Islamic law. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Islamic law Hibaaq Osman: You cannot come here to talk about reform that does not exist. Speaker: Okay, I'll tell you one thing: none of these women are constrained by their religion. Hibaaq Osman: No, my point is you cannot reform anything if you don't have the credibility. The fact that you said we have to defeat Islam, you surrendered your credibility. Speaker: Okay, let me get my point in. Hibaaq Osman: There's no time. But the point is, those who claim to be able to reform their society have to be in their society.

Jeff

343,027 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

CNN’s Dana Bash: “You have said, ‘there is literally nothing to negotiate. There’s nothing I can do.’ You are the Speaker of the House. There is, in fact, a lot you can do.” Speaker Mike Johnson: “Well, there’s not actually. Let me explain that. The — as you noted, they’re voting right now on the Senate floor. We’ll see how that turns out. Last night, three Democrats — two Democrats and an independent flipped and came along with the Republicans, but it looks like and what we expect is that most of the Democrats in the Senate again will reject the clean CR that we sent over. It’s clean. What that means is it’s nonpartisan. We didn’t add any Republican priorities or poison pills or gimmicks or tricks into that at all. It’s 24 pages. I mean, everybody can re it for themselves. It’s simply continues the Biden-era spending levels that Chuck Schumer and the Democrats have already supported in the past. They just did it most recently in March. And he gave long speeches about how it was so critically important that we not shut the government down.” Bash: “Yeah, no. Johnson: “So, there’s nothing for me to give. There’s nothing to negotiate. I don’t have any Republican priorities to put on the table, because we sent over a clean CR, and that’s why none of this makes sense.”

CNN’s Dana Bash: “You have said, ‘there is literally nothing to negotiate. There’s nothing I can do.’ You are the Speaker of the House. There is, in fact, a lot you can do.” Speaker Mike Johnson: “Well, there’s not actually. Let me explain that. The — as you noted, they’re voting right now on the Senate floor. We’ll see how that turns out. Last night, three Democrats — two Democrats and an independent flipped and came along with the Republicans, but it looks like and what we expect is that most of the Democrats in the Senate again will reject the clean CR that we sent over. It’s clean. What that means is it’s nonpartisan. We didn’t add any Republican priorities or poison pills or gimmicks or tricks into that at all. It’s 24 pages. I mean, everybody can re it for themselves. It’s simply continues the Biden-era spending levels that Chuck Schumer and the Democrats have already supported in the past. They just did it most recently in March. And he gave long speeches about how it was so critically important that we not shut the government down.” Bash: “Yeah, no. Johnson: “So, there’s nothing for me to give. There’s nothing to negotiate. I don’t have any Republican priorities to put on the table, because we sent over a clean CR, and that’s why none of this makes sense.”

Curtis Houck

1,271,239 просмотров • 1 год назад

BREAKING: Former President Trump speaks out on the ousting of Speaker Kevin McCarthy and if he will try and be Speaker. "A lot of people have been asking me about it," Trump said. He continued, saying that there are a lot of "great people in the Republican Party who could handle the job. If I can help them do it in the process [of running for president] then I'll do it. The GOP appears to be dividing at the seam. Trump would be the worst possible choice for Speaker as it would redirect his attention away from his 5 possible trials as well as his run for President. Would you want Trump as Speaker?

BREAKING: Former President Trump speaks out on the ousting of Speaker Kevin McCarthy and if he will try and be Speaker. "A lot of people have been asking me about it," Trump said. He continued, saying that there are a lot of "great people in the Republican Party who could handle the job. If I can help them do it in the process [of running for president] then I'll do it. The GOP appears to be dividing at the seam. Trump would be the worst possible choice for Speaker as it would redirect his attention away from his 5 possible trials as well as his run for President. Would you want Trump as Speaker?

Brian Krassenstein

2,816,379 просмотров • 3 лет назад

Inspired talking about Skewmond and" the best jungler in the west" debate Q: Everyone was talking a lot of Skewmond, and I would like to know about: do you believe like the series put an end to any debate about the best jungler in the West? Inspired: To me, there was never a debate. I knew that I’m always the best, but I think Skewmond is a good player. I wouldn’t say that he had any phenomenal series, though, this tournament. I think he, against T1, he still made a lot of mistakes. When he was stronger, he didn’t really try to fight enemies, and or sometimes just over committed a bit, and I think G2 won against T1 just by waiting for T1 to make mistakes. I think today, I think Skewmond played well in the team fights. I think every time he was on my screen and we’re like skirmishing and team fighting, I think he did a good job. But I think just like team wise, and like how they all played together as a team and use their jungler was wrong. And it’s hard to say, as I always said, that don’t really know who’s there like which jungler is good because you don’t really know what was his idea beyond the game plan, what his teammates wanted to do. But it just seems like they were not connected well enough, and on top of that, as I said, I think the drafts were not that great. So yeah, I think he’s a good player, but I think they need to work more on team synergy in order to actually pressure when they’re strong if they want to be like the best in the world, because I think they definitely can, but need to work a bit more. Source:

Inspired talking about Skewmond and" the best jungler in the west" debate Q: Everyone was talking a lot of Skewmond, and I would like to know about: do you believe like the series put an end to any debate about the best jungler in the West? Inspired: To me, there was never a debate. I knew that I’m always the best, but I think Skewmond is a good player. I wouldn’t say that he had any phenomenal series, though, this tournament. I think he, against T1, he still made a lot of mistakes. When he was stronger, he didn’t really try to fight enemies, and or sometimes just over committed a bit, and I think G2 won against T1 just by waiting for T1 to make mistakes. I think today, I think Skewmond played well in the team fights. I think every time he was on my screen and we’re like skirmishing and team fighting, I think he did a good job. But I think just like team wise, and like how they all played together as a team and use their jungler was wrong. And it’s hard to say, as I always said, that don’t really know who’s there like which jungler is good because you don’t really know what was his idea beyond the game plan, what his teammates wanted to do. But it just seems like they were not connected well enough, and on top of that, as I said, I think the drafts were not that great. So yeah, I think he’s a good player, but I think they need to work more on team synergy in order to actually pressure when they’re strong if they want to be like the best in the world, because I think they definitely can, but need to work a bit more. Source:

Yujin

111,070 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

With The January 6th Footage Being Released Today By Speaker Johnson Proving Literal Treason, Now Seems Like The Perfect Time To Reflect On This On The Record Evidence That Nancy Pelosi Spoke With The Chief of the Capitol Police SEVERAL TIMES On Jan 6th. Nancy Pelosi Was Briefed About What Was Going On 🚨 “A second set here. In a press conference on January 7th, Speaker Pelosi called for your resignation on national television. I am calling for the resignation of the Chief of the Capitol Police, Mr. Sund, and I have received notice from Mr. Irving that he will be submitting his resignation. Speaker Pelosi also stated that she had not talked to you since the initial breach of the Capitol, but according to your transcribed interview... You're on the phone with Speaker Pelosi a few times. Well, let me just say this. Many of our Capitol Police just acted so bravely and so with such concern for the staff, for the members, for the Capitol, for the Capitol of the United States. Many of them and they deserve our gratitude. But there was a failure of leadership at the top of the Capitol Police. And I think Mr. Sund... uh... he hasn't even called us since this happened i had made aware that i would be saying that we're calling for his resignation can you explain that discrepancy? yeah that is uh... that that is correct i spoke to speaker Pelosi three times uh... that evening and she went on national tv and said i'd never spoken to her but i spoke to her three times the three uh... three times were the first time when i went over to brief at the secure location. I had called House Sergeant Arms Irving, told him I was going over to brief the Vice President. I was also going over to do a personal assessment of the Capitol. At that point, things were getting under control. Went over there, briefed him on when we can get them back into chambers with Mr. Irving being fully aware. He said he wanted to get Speaker Pelosi on the phone. He made a phone call from his cell phone at approximately 534 where I first briefed Speaker Pelosi. The second call was when I left that location, as I was walking away I met up with Mr. Stanger and we started walking over to the Senate to go brief the Senate when Jennifer Hemingway, I believe it was Jennifer Hemingway, handed me the cell phone and it was Emily Barrett's cell phone calling her and it was Speaker Pelosi on the other line. This is my second call with Speaker Pelosi. Questioning the information I'd given to Vice President Pence about when we can get back into chambers, I assured her that information was correct. I could get them back into chambers by 7 p.m. and the call ended. That was call number two. Call number three was 6.25 p.m. I was over at the Senate from the secure location, I mean from where the Senate had been sequestered, and on a cell phone using Robert Karam's cell phone, they dialed leadership who was over or off site at a secure location, and I briefed all of the leadership of the plans to get them back into chambers. That would have been call number three with Speaker Pelosi. So you didn't have one call, you didn't have two calls, you had three calls, so Speaker Pelosi's comments that she didn't speak to you are inaccurate. That is correct, sir. Let me just say this, many of our Capitol Police just acted so bravely.” The real Insurrection at the Capitol done by the Feds and a Treasonous group of people within our own government to subvert American Tax Payers votes for the REAL elected President of the United States, Donald Trump. Release the J6 was a success. Now we need punishments. #J6Footage

With The January 6th Footage Being Released Today By Speaker Johnson Proving Literal Treason, Now Seems Like The Perfect Time To Reflect On This On The Record Evidence That Nancy Pelosi Spoke With The Chief of the Capitol Police SEVERAL TIMES On Jan 6th. Nancy Pelosi Was Briefed About What Was Going On 🚨 “A second set here. In a press conference on January 7th, Speaker Pelosi called for your resignation on national television. I am calling for the resignation of the Chief of the Capitol Police, Mr. Sund, and I have received notice from Mr. Irving that he will be submitting his resignation. Speaker Pelosi also stated that she had not talked to you since the initial breach of the Capitol, but according to your transcribed interview... You're on the phone with Speaker Pelosi a few times. Well, let me just say this. Many of our Capitol Police just acted so bravely and so with such concern for the staff, for the members, for the Capitol, for the Capitol of the United States. Many of them and they deserve our gratitude. But there was a failure of leadership at the top of the Capitol Police. And I think Mr. Sund... uh... he hasn't even called us since this happened i had made aware that i would be saying that we're calling for his resignation can you explain that discrepancy? yeah that is uh... that that is correct i spoke to speaker Pelosi three times uh... that evening and she went on national tv and said i'd never spoken to her but i spoke to her three times the three uh... three times were the first time when i went over to brief at the secure location. I had called House Sergeant Arms Irving, told him I was going over to brief the Vice President. I was also going over to do a personal assessment of the Capitol. At that point, things were getting under control. Went over there, briefed him on when we can get them back into chambers with Mr. Irving being fully aware. He said he wanted to get Speaker Pelosi on the phone. He made a phone call from his cell phone at approximately 534 where I first briefed Speaker Pelosi. The second call was when I left that location, as I was walking away I met up with Mr. Stanger and we started walking over to the Senate to go brief the Senate when Jennifer Hemingway, I believe it was Jennifer Hemingway, handed me the cell phone and it was Emily Barrett's cell phone calling her and it was Speaker Pelosi on the other line. This is my second call with Speaker Pelosi. Questioning the information I'd given to Vice President Pence about when we can get back into chambers, I assured her that information was correct. I could get them back into chambers by 7 p.m. and the call ended. That was call number two. Call number three was 6.25 p.m. I was over at the Senate from the secure location, I mean from where the Senate had been sequestered, and on a cell phone using Robert Karam's cell phone, they dialed leadership who was over or off site at a secure location, and I briefed all of the leadership of the plans to get them back into chambers. That would have been call number three with Speaker Pelosi. So you didn't have one call, you didn't have two calls, you had three calls, so Speaker Pelosi's comments that she didn't speak to you are inaccurate. That is correct, sir. Let me just say this, many of our Capitol Police just acted so bravely.” The real Insurrection at the Capitol done by the Feds and a Treasonous group of people within our own government to subvert American Tax Payers votes for the REAL elected President of the United States, Donald Trump. Release the J6 was a success. Now we need punishments. #J6Footage

Wall Street Apes

855,963 просмотров • 2 лет назад

“As a House member, before I could move a motion in the house, I had to write to the Speaker of the national assembly” “Even if you want to move such emotion, and the speaker figure out that there is an intent for such, and may want to go against what they stand for, he will sideline you” “You cannot stand up in the house and speak until the speaker permits you to do so. That is the law. The blacklist you. If you put your hands up in front of the speaker. He will overlook you and call somebody behind you.” — Hon. Chinedu Obika, Member representing Abuja Municipal/Bwari constituency. 📹: KAA Truth

“As a House member, before I could move a motion in the house, I had to write to the Speaker of the national assembly” “Even if you want to move such emotion, and the speaker figure out that there is an intent for such, and may want to go against what they stand for, he will sideline you” “You cannot stand up in the house and speak until the speaker permits you to do so. That is the law. The blacklist you. If you put your hands up in front of the speaker. He will overlook you and call somebody behind you.” — Hon. Chinedu Obika, Member representing Abuja Municipal/Bwari constituency. 📹: KAA Truth

Chude

103,967 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

General Michael Flynn says he’s knows why we’re not getting accountability for the Minnesota daycare fraud He’s looked into Speaker Mike Johnson and he’s getting daycare and healthcare clinic money funneled through PACs Taxpayers are being robbed blind “I want Speaker Johnson to do more. So we started looking at Speaker Johnson's PACs and how many of his PACs turn money back around to daycare and healthcare clinics and that kind of stuff. It's incredible the amounts of money and that's one person, but he happens to be the Speaker of the House. So this is not a partisan thing for me.” There are all in on it.

General Michael Flynn says he’s knows why we’re not getting accountability for the Minnesota daycare fraud He’s looked into Speaker Mike Johnson and he’s getting daycare and healthcare clinic money funneled through PACs Taxpayers are being robbed blind “I want Speaker Johnson to do more. So we started looking at Speaker Johnson's PACs and how many of his PACs turn money back around to daycare and healthcare clinics and that kind of stuff. It's incredible the amounts of money and that's one person, but he happens to be the Speaker of the House. So this is not a partisan thing for me.” There are all in on it.

Wall Street Apes

1,205,507 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

General Michael Flynn says he’s knows why we’re not getting accountability for the Minnesota daycare fraud He’s looked into Speaker Mike Johnson and he’s getting daycare and healthcare clinic money funneled through PACs Taxpayers are being robbed blind “I want Speaker Johnson to do more. So we started looking at Speaker Johnson's PACs and how many of his PACs turn money back around to daycare and healthcare clinics and that kind of stuff. It's incredible the amounts of money and that's one person, but he happens to be the Speaker of the House. So this is not a partisan thing for me.” There are all in on it.

General Michael Flynn says he’s knows why we’re not getting accountability for the Minnesota daycare fraud He’s looked into Speaker Mike Johnson and he’s getting daycare and healthcare clinic money funneled through PACs Taxpayers are being robbed blind “I want Speaker Johnson to do more. So we started looking at Speaker Johnson's PACs and how many of his PACs turn money back around to daycare and healthcare clinics and that kind of stuff. It's incredible the amounts of money and that's one person, but he happens to be the Speaker of the House. So this is not a partisan thing for me.” There are all in on it.

Deep Leaks

117,597 просмотров • 7 дней назад

JACK SMITH SPIED ON PRO-TRUMP CONGRESSMEN, INCLUDING THE SPEAKER CONGRESSMAN GILL: How many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn in as Speaker did you subpoena his records? JACK SMITH: I don't recall, but those two things had nothing to do with one another. GILL: It was 16 days after becoming the highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, you subpoenaed his toll records. Do you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause? SMITH: I do not, and I want to be clear that the toll records.... GILL: You were collecting months worth of phone data on the Republican Speaker of the House, the leader of the opposition, right after he got sworn in as Speaker, all around the time of a major vote. That sounds like a flagrant violation of the Speech or Debate Clause to me, and I think most people agree with me. And Speaker McCarthy had no recourse, did he? Because you issued a non-disclosure order ensuring that neither he nor any of the American people knew about these subpoenas. Is that right? SMITH: The toll record, the non-content toll record subpoenas, we did secure non-disclosure orders for those subpoenas. GILL: You did, and let me ask you, Mr. Smith, at the time you secured those non-disclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? SMITH: The non-disclosure order was based on concerns about... GILL: Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? SMITH: He was not. GILL: He was not. Then why did your non-disclosure order refer to him as a flight risk? It says right here, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution. SMITH: Sir, when securing a non-disclosure order, the risks don't have to be associated... GILL: You think that the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? GILL: You think the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? Do you think he's going to hop on a plane and leave the country? SMITH: No, what I was trying to explain is, with respect to a non-disclosure order, the risks aren't necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone. The risks to the investigation. GILL: Okay, I think that you were using, this is clearly in reference to Speaker McCarthy, and you were using clearly false information to secure a non-disclosure order to hide from Speaker McCarthy and from the American people the fact that you were spying on his toll records.

JACK SMITH SPIED ON PRO-TRUMP CONGRESSMEN, INCLUDING THE SPEAKER CONGRESSMAN GILL: How many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn in as Speaker did you subpoena his records? JACK SMITH: I don't recall, but those two things had nothing to do with one another. GILL: It was 16 days after becoming the highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, you subpoenaed his toll records. Do you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause? SMITH: I do not, and I want to be clear that the toll records.... GILL: You were collecting months worth of phone data on the Republican Speaker of the House, the leader of the opposition, right after he got sworn in as Speaker, all around the time of a major vote. That sounds like a flagrant violation of the Speech or Debate Clause to me, and I think most people agree with me. And Speaker McCarthy had no recourse, did he? Because you issued a non-disclosure order ensuring that neither he nor any of the American people knew about these subpoenas. Is that right? SMITH: The toll record, the non-content toll record subpoenas, we did secure non-disclosure orders for those subpoenas. GILL: You did, and let me ask you, Mr. Smith, at the time you secured those non-disclosure orders, was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? SMITH: The non-disclosure order was based on concerns about... GILL: Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk? SMITH: He was not. GILL: He was not. Then why did your non-disclosure order refer to him as a flight risk? It says right here, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution. SMITH: Sir, when securing a non-disclosure order, the risks don't have to be associated... GILL: You think that the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? GILL: You think the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? Do you think he's going to hop on a plane and leave the country? SMITH: No, what I was trying to explain is, with respect to a non-disclosure order, the risks aren't necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone. The risks to the investigation. GILL: Okay, I think that you were using, this is clearly in reference to Speaker McCarthy, and you were using clearly false information to secure a non-disclosure order to hide from Speaker McCarthy and from the American people the fact that you were spying on his toll records.

Svetlana Lokhova

26,100 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Delhi: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "I came to speak on the Budget, but it looks like the government and the Lok Sabha Speaker are not interested in running the House. I will come again at 2 PM and try to speak in the House. The Finance Minister was not even sitting in the House, I think they knew that the House would be adjourned..." On Opposition to move a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, he says, "It is not in my hands, you can ask the high command regarding this."

#WATCH | Delhi: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "I came to speak on the Budget, but it looks like the government and the Lok Sabha Speaker are not interested in running the House. I will come again at 2 PM and try to speak in the House. The Finance Minister was not even sitting in the House, I think they knew that the House would be adjourned..." On Opposition to move a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, he says, "It is not in my hands, you can ask the high command regarding this."

ANI

65,967 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Kim: Yeah, just because Speaker Johnson said it doesn't make it true. We've seen Speaker Johnson over and over again just shill for this administration. He's acting more like a cabinet secretary in the Trump administration, rather than a leader of a separate branch of government. But what the American people see is right before our eyes: we have this war day, 18 billions of dollars spent. And this is not going how Trump wanted it go, because they had no strategy. They have no objective. Still, to this day, I cannot tell you exactly what they are trying to achieve and when they can say that this war is over. And that's because it is just a total debacle and it's getting worse and worse and worse at a time when the American people want us to focus in on lowering their costs—we’re now seeing those costs increase dramatically

Kim: Yeah, just because Speaker Johnson said it doesn't make it true. We've seen Speaker Johnson over and over again just shill for this administration. He's acting more like a cabinet secretary in the Trump administration, rather than a leader of a separate branch of government. But what the American people see is right before our eyes: we have this war day, 18 billions of dollars spent. And this is not going how Trump wanted it go, because they had no strategy. They have no objective. Still, to this day, I cannot tell you exactly what they are trying to achieve and when they can say that this war is over. And that's because it is just a total debacle and it's getting worse and worse and worse at a time when the American people want us to focus in on lowering their costs—we’re now seeing those costs increase dramatically

Acyn

93,481 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад