Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

that was an interesting decision 🫣🥚🥢 #ballbusting #kickintheballs #nutshot #kickinthenuts #ballkicking #пояйцам #ударпояйцам #cbt #bdsm

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

American Surgeon shows the actual letter from UnitedHealthcare DENYING a patient in emergency condition from receiving care “This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms” “I think we all knew this would happen. I had another patient come in and share with me that UnitedHealthcare denied her inpatient's day. So this is a patient who had shortness of breath and some chest pain, and she just knew that something wasn't right in her body. She had a family history of blood clots and she'd had a deep flap surgery a couple of weeks ago. She went to the hospital and they saw her and they found that she had a life threatening condition known as pulmonary embolisms. So she was admitted to the hospital and taken care of really well by the doctors there. And they ordered all the right things. After a couple of days, she was discharged. She got a letter from UnitedHealthcare explaining that they didn't agree with the level of her care and that they would not cover it. So I'm gonna share some of the language of that letter with you, and I want you to know that my patient that we talked about previously who had her surgery denied had almost exactly the same letter shared. So there's some troubling things in this letter. I think this term is really interesting. United is saying they reviewed the request for inpatient admission. So let's all just pause and consider that. This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms, and the doctor wasn't really requesting anything. They were saying this patient needs to be in the hospital. But an insurance company sees this as a request, and that's part of this prior auth environment that we're living in. So I think it's important as patients and as physicians to just acknowledge that this is our reality now. Someone can think that there's a good medical decision for you and can write orders and wanna do the right thing for you, but your insurance company is seeing that as a request and deciding whether or not they wanna do it. One of the criteria that this insurance company used to decide whether or not to accept or deny this request was whether it's medically necessary. And it's so interesting that we're letting insurance companies and the doctors who work for insurance companies determine what's medically necessary and not just the doctor in front of the patient in the emergency room. So this is a really bold statement from UnitedHealthcare for my patient. They say you did not have to be admitted as an inpatient to the hospital for this care. I think we all need to just reflect on that. An insurance company is telling a patient and her doctor that they disagree with the plan of care to keep that patient safe. I know that this is boiling down to whether it's an inpatient admission or an observation admission, and that's really about money. But what I wanna point out to you is they're making medical decisions. This insurance company is actually weighing in and disagreeing with a doctor who made a medical decision to admit this patient for her safety. So this specific sentence, when a doctor or facility treats a patient above the recommended level of care, we cannot cover it. What the heck? That's what we do. We go above and beyond as physicians. It's clear that insurance companies don't, and they're actually saying it here.”

Wall Street Apes

115,712 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Bill Clinton didn't just party with Jeffrey Epstein on Epstein Island Man working close with Bill Cinton says he was laundering money, making huge payoffs, doing illegal favors for campaign support, signing off on massive cocaine deals and more “I was literally working, sitting in the middle of Bill Clinton's political machine. It was where he made payoffs, where he repaid favors to people for campaign support. I was in an interesting seat and I knew it. In that particular board meeting, I was sitting at the end of the table. James Brannion, who was chairman of the board at that time, was sitting at the head of the table. James Brannion stood up in a public restaurant and he hollered at Beverly Enterprises guy, Bobby Stevens, and said, did you get the $50,000 campaign contribution from the client that you're introducing the loan for? He said, not yet. He said, well then hold up the loan until we get it. — In reality, millions of taxpayer guaranteed dollars were being channeled to Clinton's election campaigns, to his inner circle of friends, and to his wife Hillary's law firm. This may explain why ADFA had been drafted in such a manner as to keep its decision-making procedures secret. If you needed a million dollars, you had to get your application handled by the Rose Law Firm, pay them 50,000 dollars. —Your president, the president of the United States, not only was a part of his system that was laundering millions of cocaine dogs. Your president signed off on it. You can't deny that he did.” There is much more damning evidence in this video
9:59

Sensitive content

Bill Clinton didn't just party with Jeffrey Epstein on Epstein Island Man working close with Bill Cinton says he was laundering money, making huge payoffs, doing illegal favors for campaign support, signing off on massive cocaine deals and more “I was literally working, sitting in the middle of Bill Clinton's political machine. It was where he made payoffs, where he repaid favors to people for campaign support. I was in an interesting seat and I knew it. In that particular board meeting, I was sitting at the end of the table. James Brannion, who was chairman of the board at that time, was sitting at the head of the table. James Brannion stood up in a public restaurant and he hollered at Beverly Enterprises guy, Bobby Stevens, and said, did you get the $50,000 campaign contribution from the client that you're introducing the loan for? He said, not yet. He said, well then hold up the loan until we get it. — In reality, millions of taxpayer guaranteed dollars were being channeled to Clinton's election campaigns, to his inner circle of friends, and to his wife Hillary's law firm. This may explain why ADFA had been drafted in such a manner as to keep its decision-making procedures secret. If you needed a million dollars, you had to get your application handled by the Rose Law Firm, pay them 50,000 dollars. —Your president, the president of the United States, not only was a part of his system that was laundering millions of cocaine dogs. Your president signed off on it. You can't deny that he did.” There is much more damning evidence in this video

Wall Street Apes

282,019 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Gavin's takes on Microsoft, Google, Meta, & Amazon: Microsoft ($MSFT): "I like Satya, I admire him. He's an exceptional CEO, and I give him a lot of credit for the decisions he's made. But he did go from, "We're going to make Google dance," to being the product manager of Copilot in 3 years. The decision Satya is making now, which the market has punished him for, but I think is the right decision — who knows how fast Azure could be growing if they were willing to just sell GPUs to OpenAI. 'We're going to use our compute internally to make our own products better.' One reason Copilot was so bad, or has been so bad, is that there wasn't enough compute available. They're fixing that. He's making good decisions that are risky decisions, to position Microsoft for this world where frontier models are no longer API-accessible. It's a really courageous decision that I give him a lot of credit for. Microsoft probably would be an $800 stock today if they were using their GPUs to serve solely OpenAI and Anthropic's capacity instead of using them for their own products." Google ($GOOG): "Google was incredible last year because they had that TPU advantage, which is now gone. The reason I think they're still in a great position is they have the most compute of everyone. We talked about the value of installed bases being higher as a result of shortages — they have the biggest installed base of compute. Google I/O is this week. If they don't release something that even slightly leapfrogs OpenAI and/or Claude, that's interesting. It's not a disaster for Google, it's just interesting. Between the amount of data they have, the YouTube data, the amount of compute, the search business — Google's never not going to be in a good position. You see that with GCP going crazy." Meta ($META): "You've got to give Zuckerberg immense credit, for what he's done in terms of making Meta an AI-first company internally. He is the only one of those true internet giants to have done that. I give him a lot of credit for paying up when he did for contracts, that talent. And Muse was a really big upside surprise. It was the first model from MSL, and it's not on the Pareto frontier with xAI, Google's one entrant, OpenAI and Claude, but it's pretty close. That was very impressive to me. So Meta is in a better position — still not as strong of an absolute position as Google, but a better position." Amazon ($AMZN): "Amazon is in a really strong position because of Trainium. You're going to see real P&L efficiencies from robotics over the next 18 months in their retail business. I actually think Nova — their internal models are not where Muse is, but they're better than they get credit for. The two companies who are the most deeply engaged with startups are Amazon and Nvidia by a mile. It's going to end up being a pretty big advantage for Nvidia and Amazon — with Google right behind them — to have this engagement that you just don't see from these other hyperscalers."

Invest Like the Best

52,492 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Chains all scale the same way now. Throw activity onto an L2, spin up another rollup, let the liquidity scatter and call it progress. Cardano Community went the other direction and it’s the more telling move 👇 ◢ Relocation, not Repair An L2 doesn't fix a congested base layer. It moves the congestion to a room with a different name. You get more bridges to drain, more chains that don't talk, users spread so thin that "the ecosystem" stops meaning one thing. It demos beautifully on launch day. that's the whole appeal. ◢ Nowhere to Hide Fixing the base layer is slower and a lot less forgiving. You can't ship it and walk away. It has to survive real load while the consensus that's secured the chain for years keeps holding, and if it cracks there's no rollup to point at. Leios picked the version with no escape hatch. ◢ The flex is what stayed the same Throughput is the number people will quote but it's not the interesting decision. The interesting decision was leaving the trust model untouched, growing capacity on top of what already works instead of ripping it out and praying the replacement holds. Restraint is harder to market than a big number, which is probably why nobody markets it. ◢ Read the packaging A swordsman's name. Five phases you have to clear in order. That framing is doing work. Ship-fast teams sell the destination; this one is selling the discipline of getting there, which is a quiet way of saying judge us on the grind, not the announcement. My take: in a market that pays out to whoever is loudest, choosing the slow unglamorous path to scale is almost a contrarian bet on itself. It doesn't make leios right, that's what months of testing are for. but "we made the base layer carry more without breaking what made it trusted" is a sentence that still means something in a year. 🔗 Testnet + SPO onboarding:

Onur 🍌🦍

19,114 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The ruling by a High Court’ judge in the Mike Chimombe & Moses Mpofu case is very interesting. I encourage everyone in business, every director, Executive, tenderpreneur and every lawyer to watch it. The judge ruled that both accused have a case to answer. This means they must be put to their defence, and explain their conduct. Depriving them of such after the state rested its case would work against them and lead to their conviction. The judge articulated the law in detail and interpreted it clearly at great length explaining how he arrived at that decision. Note that the accused wanted the case dismissed, arguing that their clients had no case to answer since they didn’t award themselves the tender and that the tender was awarded to a company, not them as individuals. The hearing and subsequent ruling is interesting for the following reasons: •The two are accused of deceiving the state by submitting fraudulent documents and winning the tender. •The judge explains in detail the 3 essential elements /rails on which in a criminal case, a person accused of fraud can be acquitted without being put to their defence, that is the accused can apply for discharge at the close of the state’s case. • The first essential element is that there is no evidence presented linking the accused to the offence. The court has no choice but to acquit. •The second element is that there may be no evidence of an ingredient of the crime (there are essential ingredients of the crime), in which case the accused must be acquitted. •The third element is that the state witnesses’ testimony and evidence is so poor that a court cannot rely on it to convict, in which case the accused must be acquitted. •In their application for discharge, Mpofu and Chimombe didn’t raise essential element 3. In other words, they deemed the witnesses credible in their evidence. They didn’t argue that the evidence of the state witness isn’t credible. •Mpofu and Chimombe also didn’t raise element number 1, meaning they didn’t argue that they were not linked at all to the offence, in which case they would have persuaded the court for an acquittal. •The two accused sought to rely, in their application for discharge, on the second element, which is, they argued that an ingredient of the evidence of committing the crime was missing: in other words, they are arguing that indeed fraud, deception and misrepresentation occurred, but was not occasioned by them personally, but by companies that won the tenders. •The accused’s lawyer argued that the accused did not influence the award of the bid, may have participated by signing contracts after the award, but that is neither here nor there, making their involvement post facto. They further argued that the state dealt with a corporate entity, not an individual. The state would have to pierce the corporate veil through an application to that effect to get to Mpofu and Chimombe. This is where it gets more interesting. •The judge delves into the issue of the corporate veil in criminal matters in detail. He explains that the effect of section 277 of the criminal code and reform act is to remove the corporate veil that exists in common law on criminal issues relating to companies. It’s very important for employees and directors to grasp these aspects of the law. The judge also touches on aspects of vicarious liability. •The companies act and criminal code were modified a lot in the last ten years. Most people are not aware of this. •Watch the hearing and ruling and educate yourself. Busisa Moyo Tawanda Nyambirai @tino_chinyoka1 Retired Elder Rex M.E Midzi

mmatigari

20,172 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

$MMTLP: Yesterday, during a town hall, Congressman Pete Sessions was asked directly by an MMTLP shareholder about FINRA’s conduct and the broken promise of a share audit. Sessions responded by agreeing that the rug was pulled from under us... which we appreciate... but then pivoted to mention the SEC’s recent charges against former Meta executives. The shareholder, to their credit, pushed back immediately and pointed out what many of us have said for months now: those charges have nothing to do with the lack of a share audit and transparency from the regulators. The issue at the heart of this is simple... how many shares exist, and why has no regulator been willing to account for them? That question still hangs in the air, unanswered. I also found it interesting that Sessions also brought up the price action on the last day of trading and asked why people didn’t sell if they were concerned. So let me try to explain this in a way that hopefully makes it clearer for the Congressman, or anyone else still asking that question. In the two days before the halt... Wednesday, December 7th and Thursday, December 8th... every single major U.S. broker told their clients that Friday, December 9th, and Monday, December 12th, would be “position close only” for MMTLP. That meant you couldn’t open new positions... only close out existing ones. In addition to that, some brokers even notified clients that short positions would be forced to close during that time. So what does that mean in practical terms? It means that retail investors were led to believe... based directly on FINRA’s own guidance and two separate corporate action notices... that Friday and Monday were the critical two days to sell. And it wasn’t just a hope. It was an expectation. The price of the shares moving upward was not just likely... it was logically anticipated, based on the idea that shorts would have no choice but to buy back shares to close, in an environment where opening of any short positions would not be allowed. That’s when the price was supposed to run. So why didn’t people sell sooner? Because it would’ve been like walking out of a bingo hall with a nearly full card before the last ball was pulled. If you knew the dealer told the hall that the card would likely fill out on Friday and Monday, why would you walk out of the game on Thursday... especially if your card was nearly full? We were all playing by the timeline FINRA gave us. Then they moved the goalpost mid play. They halted trading on Friday before the open, without warning, and locked everyone in. That’s why people didn’t sell. Because we were told... explicitly... that we still had time. So Mr. Sessions, with respect: We appreciate your continued acknowledgment that something went terribly wrong here. But let’s not minimize the decision to hold based on clear regulatory messaging that was reversed without notice. This wasn’t investor negligence. This was investor reliance... on information published by FINRA and echoed by brokerages across the country. And that is exactly why a share audit is still critical. Because if that rug pull happened after millions of counterfeit or unsettled shares were sold into this security... and never reconciled... then what happened to us wasn’t just a regulatory breakdown. It was theft. Plain and simple, sir. We invite your office to re-engage, demand the share audit you called for, and press the SEC and FINRA for real answers... not recycled statements. At this point, transparency should not be optional. Thank you.

DrewDiligence

50,614 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨Medical coder/whistleblower: Here's how Palantir's "KILL CHAIN" programs were used to target and "EXECUTE" American citizens with COVID jabs/remdesivir/ventilators. "They identified different hospitals or different individual patients based on [their 'threat risk score'] and [that's how they] determined [who]...to execute...with their AI kill-chain Gotham program." This clip of author, former medical coder, and whistleblower Zowe Smith (Sheldon Diedericks) is taken from an interview with James Corbett posted to Rumble on June 17, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So there was a program called HHS Protect during Operation Warp Speed, was part of Operation Warp Speed. That's where I think most of the public-facing infrastructure began. Although I was looking into Operation Stargate, and I'm seeing documentation on CIA databases that say it's more than 10 years in the making. So, definitely it's, it's a planned thing. It didn't just come out with day two, Trump administration. "But, so this HHS Protect program is really interesting because what it did, it used two different Palantir programs. So the AMA, HHS, the CDC specifically, all partnered with Palantir. And then Palantir developed a program for Operation Warp Speed. And that program, what it did was it assigned people a Threat Risk Score. And then that was a program called Tiberius, which they also use for other purposes. "So I want to make this point about AI, because when I was a medical coder, I was using a program which is a partner of Palantir, both 3M and Epic, and those are two different programs that I use that both have AI built into them that are partners of Palantir. And so all of these AI databases talk to each other as a condition of working with each other. So this has been going on for a very long time. But within Epic there are programs and you can rename them whatever you want, but it's the same program at any hospital across the country. So, like your program, Epic, might not be named Epic at Johns Hopkins or Mayo, it might have a different name at Johns Hopkins or Mayo, but it's still the same program. "So this program from Palantir called Tiberius, they can rename that whatever they want, but the program will still do what it was programmed to do. It's, it's just a function really. And HHS had two programs built in. Tiberius was the thing that assigned you a Threat Risk score. And that was if you were following lockdown criteria, if you were actually distancing from people, if you had been vaccinated, if you were masking, you know, how obedient were you, that was your threat risk score. They also could determine down to the zip code where you were and how compliant areas were. "And so, as Whitney Webb covers from the Unlimited Hangout, she wrote a article covering this program, HHS Protect, and highlights how this was used to target ethnic groups. So this threat risk score also incorporated your ethnicity and they thought, you know, you're higher risk if you're certain ethnic groups. So of course that was part of the risk score. And then Gotham is the AI kill chain program created by Palantir and that was used within HHS Protect to execute. "So the Gotham program, it takes the threat risk score from Tiberius and then it executes the threat or tells, does an AI decision making process and decides when and how and where to deploy the countermeasures. Which was your vaccine, your remdesivir and your ventilator. That is why HHS Protect was created so that they could monitor all of this. And that is how they identified different hospitals or different individual patients based on some algorithm and determined that's how we're going to execute people with their AI kill chain Gotham program."

Sense Receptor

264,307 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

“‘Beam Me Up!’ — Mark Geragos Wanted to Escape Megyn Kelly Show” Geragos compared the experience to a "tense courtroom moment... where I want to just absent myself ... Get me out of here." In Thursday night's episode podcast In The Well, renowned criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos and former Orange County Senior Deputy District Attorney Matt Murphy, who spent 17 years in the Homicide Unit and successfully prosecuted dozens of murder cases, reflected on their appearance as guests on the Megyn Kelly Show. Matt Murphy opened the discussion by noting the warm relationship with the host while highlighting the unusual dynamic of the segment. “Kelly, who has been wonderful to Mark and I. And this was an interesting dynamic today, Mark, wasn’t it?” He explained that Megyn Kelly was critical of the judge and very critical of the defense, prompting both men to push back against several of her points. Mark Geragos then described the challenging format of the interview. “I think I said, Matt, I think I said she, Megan did about 18 minutes of a monologue and then I had to sit there on mute because I wasn’t in the room and then she went to you. That was one of the hardest.” He compared the experience to a tense courtroom moment: “You know what it reminded me of? It reminded me of after I sit down on a closing and I got to listen to you on a reply where I want to just absent myself from the courtroom. I want to just beam me aboard. Get me out of here. Listening to Megan’s 18-minute monologue was one of the toughest things I’ve ever had to endure.” Matt Murphy, who could see Geragos on screen during the broadcast, shared a vivid description of his co-host’s visible frustration. “And for the viewer, just so you know, I can see Mark’s face on the screen. So, we’re in different places, but I can see him. He was like one of those cats behind a window that’s looking at birds where he’s just like jumping at the window like his whiskers are moving.” The conversation then turned to a broader point about emotions influencing judgment. Murphy praised Megyn Kelly’s intellect, saying she is “one of the smartest people in media” and that he has “always admired her.” He acknowledged an emotional layer to her comments, noting that she was friends with Charlie Kirk. “I mean that with absolutely zero criticism and I’ve had friends that have been murdered. And so I totally get it.” Murphy used the moment to reflect on how emotions can cloud decision-making in everyday life and in the legal profession: “When emotions are involved in our judgment, oftentimes we can… at least for me personally, I don’t want to speak for her, but when I’m mad about something, I will always make the wrong decision. Whenever I’m making a decision or issuing a judgment, whatever it is, whether it’s standing in line to get iced coffee to prosecuting a death penalty case, if I base a decision on my emotions at the time, it is almost always the wrong one.”

Andrea Shaffer, Anti-Marxist Warrior

94,794 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce