Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

This article actually reminded me of something yesterday... ...that Vivian Balakrishnan (the famous Foreign Minister of Singapore) was once opposition So I did some research and stumbled upon this GEM of a video and here's the synopsis: In 1990, a 28-year-old Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan sparred with a young lawyer...

DRTnky's profile picture

DarylTanky

9,858 subscribers

89,745 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

ArtsNews & PoliticsEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Tucker Carlson: Remembering Charlie Kirk - A Life of Faith and Courage "Quickly about Charlie, I've known him since he was a teenager, and just an amazing person, but the two things that stick out, he's a Christian man. We talked about that a lot, including, you know, just the other day. There's a lot of pressure on public people, people who run huge, you know, hundred million dollar a year non-profits, and there are a lot of pitfalls and traps." "That's why so many of them are destroyed, and Charlie really did, without, you know, betraying details, like he walked the line for real. It was the topic of many conversations between us, because I've seen so many people destroyed. You know, most people are destroyed by power, and he wasn't, and I just really admire that." "I mean, to his last moments, you know, in order, he cared about God, his wife, and his children, and then his country. So, and that was totally real, completely real. I can affirm that, because I just talked to him about it so much, and I admire that, and he's a model, really." "I mean, he didn't have hate in his heart, and it was funny, and again, it's one of the reasons I couldn't stop looking at these videos last night. People were describing the opposite of what he was. He was filled with hate." "No, and if you talked to him about people who had attacked him, or who were truly his enemies, up to, and I think including the people who assassinated him yesterday, he would never, ever express hate, ever. He would always turn to, no, this person has been led astray. This person is clearly possessed by dark forces." "This person is a perpetrator, but also a victim of evil. I mean, that really was his worldview. That's the Christian worldview, and he expressed that in public, and especially in private, and I think that faith, which was completely real, not the fake faith that you see on display so often, but a real one, that was the root of his courage, and he had real courage." "He loved being with people who disagreed with him, not theoretically with them, but physically with them, you know, like close enough to smell. He would wait right in the middle of everything. I mean, I could tell you a million stories that I saw, but that was absolutely real." "Like, he loved people, even people who hated him, and people he loved, he was the rare person who was willing to tell them what he thought was true. I mean, he really believed, as a political matter, by the way, that, you know, I don't think he had animus toward anybody in no other country, but he really believed in his own country, and the obligation of his government to stand behind his country. He was truly America first in the nicest, most decent, non-ideological, but sincere way." "He was one of the only people, I mean, truly one of the only people to go to the president, whom he loved. He loved Donald Trump, like, personally as well, and I think the president really loved him in a real way, but he was one of the only people to go to the Oval Office and say, sir, I totally understand, and think Iran's really bad, but a war with Iran is not, you know, is something that could really hurt our country. I mean, boy, that was an unpopular position." "He didn't need to express it. Oh, of course, and he did it again. He didn't have some weird agenda. He wasn't mad at anybody. He was for his country, and he was for doing the right and wise and difficult thing, and he said that. He went to the Oval Office to say that." "He took massive, massive abuse from his own donors, which is also something that you don't see. He was one of the very few people, very few people I have met who combined a, like, a love for everyone involved with strong views. So, again, he was not animated by anything creepy or weird." "I mean, you knew him intimately, so you know this is true. If you talked to him off camera, he would say, you know, I really, like, I love whoever I'm talking about, but I think this is wrong. It's immoral." "It's bad for everybody involved, both sides, and he would say that, and he could say that because it was sincere. It was completely sincere, but I cannot overstate the amount of attacks he took privately over this, like, absolutely for real, and having lived in Washington most of my life and seen people run non-profits, I've never met one who was willing, stand up is too strong. He wasn't confrontational, but he would just say, no, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I think this is the right thing." "The people we represent, which is mostly young people, they believe this, and I believe it also. It was brave, but loving at the same time, and I'm not sure he made a lot of headway, by the way. I mean, I think he made real enemies in doing that, but his view didn't change." "Anyway, he's just a wonderfully decent, loving man. That is true."
4:27

Tucker Carlson: Remembering Charlie Kirk - A Life of Faith and Courage "Quickly about Charlie, I've known him since he was a teenager, and just an amazing person, but the two things that stick out, he's a Christian man. We talked about that a lot, including, you know, just the other day. There's a lot of pressure on public people, people who run huge, you know, hundred million dollar a year non-profits, and there are a lot of pitfalls and traps." "That's why so many of them are destroyed, and Charlie really did, without, you know, betraying details, like he walked the line for real. It was the topic of many conversations between us, because I've seen so many people destroyed. You know, most people are destroyed by power, and he wasn't, and I just really admire that." "I mean, to his last moments, you know, in order, he cared about God, his wife, and his children, and then his country. So, and that was totally real, completely real. I can affirm that, because I just talked to him about it so much, and I admire that, and he's a model, really." "I mean, he didn't have hate in his heart, and it was funny, and again, it's one of the reasons I couldn't stop looking at these videos last night. People were describing the opposite of what he was. He was filled with hate." "No, and if you talked to him about people who had attacked him, or who were truly his enemies, up to, and I think including the people who assassinated him yesterday, he would never, ever express hate, ever. He would always turn to, no, this person has been led astray. This person is clearly possessed by dark forces." "This person is a perpetrator, but also a victim of evil. I mean, that really was his worldview. That's the Christian worldview, and he expressed that in public, and especially in private, and I think that faith, which was completely real, not the fake faith that you see on display so often, but a real one, that was the root of his courage, and he had real courage." "He loved being with people who disagreed with him, not theoretically with them, but physically with them, you know, like close enough to smell. He would wait right in the middle of everything. I mean, I could tell you a million stories that I saw, but that was absolutely real." "Like, he loved people, even people who hated him, and people he loved, he was the rare person who was willing to tell them what he thought was true. I mean, he really believed, as a political matter, by the way, that, you know, I don't think he had animus toward anybody in no other country, but he really believed in his own country, and the obligation of his government to stand behind his country. He was truly America first in the nicest, most decent, non-ideological, but sincere way." "He was one of the only people, I mean, truly one of the only people to go to the president, whom he loved. He loved Donald Trump, like, personally as well, and I think the president really loved him in a real way, but he was one of the only people to go to the Oval Office and say, sir, I totally understand, and think Iran's really bad, but a war with Iran is not, you know, is something that could really hurt our country. I mean, boy, that was an unpopular position." "He didn't need to express it. Oh, of course, and he did it again. He didn't have some weird agenda. He wasn't mad at anybody. He was for his country, and he was for doing the right and wise and difficult thing, and he said that. He went to the Oval Office to say that." "He took massive, massive abuse from his own donors, which is also something that you don't see. He was one of the very few people, very few people I have met who combined a, like, a love for everyone involved with strong views. So, again, he was not animated by anything creepy or weird." "I mean, you knew him intimately, so you know this is true. If you talked to him off camera, he would say, you know, I really, like, I love whoever I'm talking about, but I think this is wrong. It's immoral." "It's bad for everybody involved, both sides, and he would say that, and he could say that because it was sincere. It was completely sincere, but I cannot overstate the amount of attacks he took privately over this, like, absolutely for real, and having lived in Washington most of my life and seen people run non-profits, I've never met one who was willing, stand up is too strong. He wasn't confrontational, but he would just say, no, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I think this is the right thing." "The people we represent, which is mostly young people, they believe this, and I believe it also. It was brave, but loving at the same time, and I'm not sure he made a lot of headway, by the way. I mean, I think he made real enemies in doing that, but his view didn't change." "Anyway, he's just a wonderfully decent, loving man. That is true."

Camus

41,966 views • 11 months ago

CNN’s Jake Tapper: “[Lindsey Graham] had some harsh words about you 10 years ago, when you were running against each other.” President Trump: “Well, he ran against me, and he was, you know, formidable. He was a tough cookie. He was tough and smart. And that's where I got to know him, on the campaign. I didn't know him before then.” “And I spoke to him maybe once in my life before then. But I got to know him. He was one of the 17 people that ran against me. And he was a smart guy. And it was a nasty campaign. He was tough and nasty. But I was nasty too. And it worked out fine.” “And I got to know him by little drips and drabs, and then we became friendly. And there was no better advocate. He was a fantastic advocate in the Senate. And he could do things that other people… if I had a really big problem with a certain Democrat, he could work it out. That's something most Republicans can't do.”
0:53

CNN’s Jake Tapper: “[Lindsey Graham] had some harsh words about you 10 years ago, when you were running against each other.” President Trump: “Well, he ran against me, and he was, you know, formidable. He was a tough cookie. He was tough and smart. And that's where I got to know him, on the campaign. I didn't know him before then.” “And I spoke to him maybe once in my life before then. But I got to know him. He was one of the 17 people that ran against me. And he was a smart guy. And it was a nasty campaign. He was tough and nasty. But I was nasty too. And it worked out fine.” “And I got to know him by little drips and drabs, and then we became friendly. And there was no better advocate. He was a fantastic advocate in the Senate. And he could do things that other people… if I had a really big problem with a certain Democrat, he could work it out. That's something most Republicans can't do.”

RedWave Press

1,234,906 views • 1 month ago

Ginny Roth "The Prime Minister loved the politics of playing tough during election campaign." "But now that he actually has to come up with a deal that doesn't work for him... He has to compromise." "But I think he eroded that position when he was doing all that theater for all those many, many months in the lead up to becoming Prime Minister and then ultimately through the and that now that he's since Prime Minister and I think that's going to be the point that Poilievre is going to try to make is you can't have it both ways." "You can't say your elbows up, get the political theater, get the political benefit, and then also be the person that's compromising" Marieke Walsh "The Prime Minister's office has not done a lot of groundwork laying in terms of setting expectations for Canadians in terms of the concessions and the possibility for pain as part of this deal." Ginny Roth Marieke Walsh
3:15

Ginny Roth "The Prime Minister loved the politics of playing tough during election campaign." "But now that he actually has to come up with a deal that doesn't work for him... He has to compromise." "But I think he eroded that position when he was doing all that theater for all those many, many months in the lead up to becoming Prime Minister and then ultimately through the and that now that he's since Prime Minister and I think that's going to be the point that Poilievre is going to try to make is you can't have it both ways." "You can't say your elbows up, get the political theater, get the political benefit, and then also be the person that's compromising" Marieke Walsh "The Prime Minister's office has not done a lot of groundwork laying in terms of setting expectations for Canadians in terms of the concessions and the possibility for pain as part of this deal." Ginny Roth Marieke Walsh

cbcwatcher

78,089 views • 19 days ago

Who Do You Think The 3rd Person Is? Bill Gates? Klaus Schwab? Someone Else? “Nostradamus saw in his future three men that he called antichrists. One was Napoleon, the second one was Hitler, and the third one is the one that is to come, who is said to be the worst of all, because he will learn from the mistakes of the others. A very dangerous person. He didn't like the term antichrist. He said it was a Christian term, and it was not exactly what he meant. But he said, if you think of Christ as representing people, humanity, then antichrist is someone who does terrible things against humanity, against people. And it can be the type of personality like Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun, the type that doesn't care anything about what it's doing, it only wants power. So this is what he meant by an Antichrist. But the third one, he gave us a great deal of information about him because he wanted us to do something to stop the man. He said in the Bible, in the book of Revelation and other books in the Old Testament, the people saw the same things that he saw their symbolism they could understand in their time, but they all saw the same thing. And the man he refers to as the Antichrist is the number 666 in the Book of Revelation, called the Beast. Of course he said 666 also refers to his connection to his computers. So there's a lot more to it. But he has been predicted as far back as Bible times. So he said he has a destiny to fulfill. He has to come, but after he comes, what happens after that is in the hands of mankind. Do we allow it to go through the worst case scenarios or can we lessen it? That's the point fulfill. We were given a lot of information about this man because he is so important. We have his horoscope. He was born on February the 4th, 1962 in Jerusalem, but he's not Jewish. And his parents were killed during the Israeli war and when he was about six or seven years old, and he was raised by his uncle. His uncle is a very evil man, and we have had many people see him, and we have in my work, and we had one woman who was able to put together a police composite picture of the uncle and of the antichrist. She was a psychic who had worked with police on many cases, so she knew how to do the police composite kits. But the uncle took the young boy him as his own. What the young boy doesn't know was that the uncle had his parents killed, so he could have him for himself. And he has gotten together a very powerful group of rich Arabs in the Middle East, and they've been taking care of this young boy and grooming him for the role he is to take. It's a very powerful group of people that control everything that happens in the Middle East. They're the puppet masters behind the scenes. Nusrat Dhamma said, by the time seven puppets arise in the Middle East, you will realize what is happening that they are not the real leaders of the countries, but they are the puppets being manipulated by the puppet masters behind the scenes. The young Antichrist went to college in Egypt, and we were working on this at the same time he was in college, so we were shown several scenes of him in college. We knew where he was living. We had all this information.”
3:32

Who Do You Think The 3rd Person Is? Bill Gates? Klaus Schwab? Someone Else? “Nostradamus saw in his future three men that he called antichrists. One was Napoleon, the second one was Hitler, and the third one is the one that is to come, who is said to be the worst of all, because he will learn from the mistakes of the others. A very dangerous person. He didn't like the term antichrist. He said it was a Christian term, and it was not exactly what he meant. But he said, if you think of Christ as representing people, humanity, then antichrist is someone who does terrible things against humanity, against people. And it can be the type of personality like Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun, the type that doesn't care anything about what it's doing, it only wants power. So this is what he meant by an Antichrist. But the third one, he gave us a great deal of information about him because he wanted us to do something to stop the man. He said in the Bible, in the book of Revelation and other books in the Old Testament, the people saw the same things that he saw their symbolism they could understand in their time, but they all saw the same thing. And the man he refers to as the Antichrist is the number 666 in the Book of Revelation, called the Beast. Of course he said 666 also refers to his connection to his computers. So there's a lot more to it. But he has been predicted as far back as Bible times. So he said he has a destiny to fulfill. He has to come, but after he comes, what happens after that is in the hands of mankind. Do we allow it to go through the worst case scenarios or can we lessen it? That's the point fulfill. We were given a lot of information about this man because he is so important. We have his horoscope. He was born on February the 4th, 1962 in Jerusalem, but he's not Jewish. And his parents were killed during the Israeli war and when he was about six or seven years old, and he was raised by his uncle. His uncle is a very evil man, and we have had many people see him, and we have in my work, and we had one woman who was able to put together a police composite picture of the uncle and of the antichrist. She was a psychic who had worked with police on many cases, so she knew how to do the police composite kits. But the uncle took the young boy him as his own. What the young boy doesn't know was that the uncle had his parents killed, so he could have him for himself. And he has gotten together a very powerful group of rich Arabs in the Middle East, and they've been taking care of this young boy and grooming him for the role he is to take. It's a very powerful group of people that control everything that happens in the Middle East. They're the puppet masters behind the scenes. Nusrat Dhamma said, by the time seven puppets arise in the Middle East, you will realize what is happening that they are not the real leaders of the countries, but they are the puppets being manipulated by the puppet masters behind the scenes. The young Antichrist went to college in Egypt, and we were working on this at the same time he was in college, so we were shown several scenes of him in college. We knew where he was living. We had all this information.”

Wall Street Apes

1,338,694 views • 2 years ago

Steven Spielberg says when he made Close Encounters he hoped UFOs were a real phenomenon but now he knows they are “When I was making Close Encounters, which is 50 years ago, when I was making that film, I did a lot of research and I really got to the edge of really believing that something was happening in our skies that we weren't being told about. But the imaginative part of Close Encounters kind of captured me. And I wrote it from my heart. It was sort of a wish fulfillment story, hoping that maybe a little bit of what I'm talking about in this picture might be true, but wasn't sure back then. And then 50 years goes by and I made disclosure day because I really believe that things that I was only hoping were true back then are things that are actually happening now today.”
0:55

Steven Spielberg says when he made Close Encounters he hoped UFOs were a real phenomenon but now he knows they are “When I was making Close Encounters, which is 50 years ago, when I was making that film, I did a lot of research and I really got to the edge of really believing that something was happening in our skies that we weren't being told about. But the imaginative part of Close Encounters kind of captured me. And I wrote it from my heart. It was sort of a wish fulfillment story, hoping that maybe a little bit of what I'm talking about in this picture might be true, but wasn't sure back then. And then 50 years goes by and I made disclosure day because I really believe that things that I was only hoping were true back then are things that are actually happening now today.”

Red Panda Koala

147,879 views • 3 months ago

VIDEO | Speaking in the Lok Sabha, Union Home Minister Amit Shah says, “The opposition leader Rahul Gandhi is a senior Congress leader and is often active in public life. During Lok Sabha sessions, major party events and elections take place, and senior leaders naturally interact with the public and express their views. This is normal and has happened with many leaders, not just Rahul ji. But the question is, if he was absent from the House, where was he? He was on trips abroad, to Germany in winter 2025, Vietnam, England, Singapore, Malaysia, and other countries, for a total of 60 days. It is purely coincidental that these trips coincided with budget sessions. Whenever there is a budget discussion, he seems to be abroad. Then he complains that he is not allowed to speak. How can he speak from a foreign country? There is no video-conference facility here; otherwise, he could have participated remotely...Should I also comment on the opposition’s conduct? For example, when the Prime Minister was seated at the Treasury Bench, some opposition members ran up and hugged him, this has never happened before. It has never happened that members of Opposition parties blow flying kisses or wink at ruling party members. Honestly, I even hesitate to speak about it.”
2:58

VIDEO | Speaking in the Lok Sabha, Union Home Minister Amit Shah says, “The opposition leader Rahul Gandhi is a senior Congress leader and is often active in public life. During Lok Sabha sessions, major party events and elections take place, and senior leaders naturally interact with the public and express their views. This is normal and has happened with many leaders, not just Rahul ji. But the question is, if he was absent from the House, where was he? He was on trips abroad, to Germany in winter 2025, Vietnam, England, Singapore, Malaysia, and other countries, for a total of 60 days. It is purely coincidental that these trips coincided with budget sessions. Whenever there is a budget discussion, he seems to be abroad. Then he complains that he is not allowed to speak. How can he speak from a foreign country? There is no video-conference facility here; otherwise, he could have participated remotely...Should I also comment on the opposition’s conduct? For example, when the Prime Minister was seated at the Treasury Bench, some opposition members ran up and hugged him, this has never happened before. It has never happened that members of Opposition parties blow flying kisses or wink at ruling party members. Honestly, I even hesitate to speak about it.”

Press Trust of India

54,051 views • 5 months ago

Vivian Dsena took a decision without any discussion with Avinash. Yet again, Avinash felt that he was losing control over Vivian and started blaming him “Mahan banne ki kosish”. His way of being fair was seen in the nomination where he nominated Vivian just to show how he can go against his own person if he feels something is wrong. Again, His way of being fair came across when there was a chance to save Vivian, but he didn’t save in the name of fairness. He chose to be fair the Time God task with Chum because he wanted to be fair / mahan n wanted to leave this TG opportunity as per his convince. Vivian never thinks in planning a way where he plans his moves . He was never a player in this game. He does things that he feels right and comes from his heart. #VivianDsena || #BiggBoss18 , #VDians || #BB18
1:14

Vivian Dsena took a decision without any discussion with Avinash. Yet again, Avinash felt that he was losing control over Vivian and started blaming him “Mahan banne ki kosish”. His way of being fair was seen in the nomination where he nominated Vivian just to show how he can go against his own person if he feels something is wrong. Again, His way of being fair came across when there was a chance to save Vivian, but he didn’t save in the name of fairness. He chose to be fair the Time God task with Chum because he wanted to be fair / mahan n wanted to leave this TG opportunity as per his convince. Vivian never thinks in planning a way where he plans his moves . He was never a player in this game. He does things that he feels right and comes from his heart. #VivianDsena || #BiggBoss18 , #VDians || #BB18

Vivian Dsena

42,455 views • 1 year ago

Why Elon didn't want to be CEO: "[Elon] is at core, an engineer and a product guy. He has this great line where he said: "I realized you couldn't be fully in control of the product unless you were also in control of the company." He says he made a moral error, early in Tesla, where he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to control the company without running the company. And that was the 2002 to 2008 era, where Tesla was just off to a really messy start. He was providing the funding. He was chairman of the board. But Martin Eberhard was CEO. Eventually, when Tesla was on the verge of death in 2008....Elon was pushed into the position of: "I have to be CEO. I don't want to be. It comes with a lot of chores. It comes with a lot of responsibilities. But if I want this company to be successful, I have to fully internalize and take responsibility for it." And that's what he did, even though he was also in the same position at SpaceX. The fact that these companies are improbable, iconic, and that he funded and led them both in parallel...it's like running a two minute mile twice at the same time. It is such a higher degree of difficulty than most people can conceive of, and the fact that it worked is still unbelievable."
4:24

Why Elon didn't want to be CEO: "[Elon] is at core, an engineer and a product guy. He has this great line where he said: "I realized you couldn't be fully in control of the product unless you were also in control of the company." He says he made a moral error, early in Tesla, where he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to control the company without running the company. And that was the 2002 to 2008 era, where Tesla was just off to a really messy start. He was providing the funding. He was chairman of the board. But Martin Eberhard was CEO. Eventually, when Tesla was on the verge of death in 2008....Elon was pushed into the position of: "I have to be CEO. I don't want to be. It comes with a lot of chores. It comes with a lot of responsibilities. But if I want this company to be successful, I have to fully internalize and take responsibility for it." And that's what he did, even though he was also in the same position at SpaceX. The fact that these companies are improbable, iconic, and that he funded and led them both in parallel...it's like running a two minute mile twice at the same time. It is such a higher degree of difficulty than most people can conceive of, and the fact that it worked is still unbelievable."

Ti Morse

47,497 views • 4 months ago

Quentin Tarantino recounts a dinner with Robert De Niro during the making of Jackie Brown, where he asked him whether he understood when he landed the role of Vito in The Godfather Part II, that it would change his life. De Niro’s answer revealed a great deal about his mindset at the time. “I was working with Robert De Niro on Jackie brown, and we went out to dinner once. - When he got Vito in the Godfather Part II, that was going to be a big thing for him. He won the Oscar for it - it set him up to be a movie star. So I asked him - and I've asked this to quite a few actors when it comes to when they got the role that would end up changing their career - did he realize that the moment when he got the role, that it would have this sort of effect? And he goes oh, “I tried not to let it do that. I tried not to think about that” I go, "really? and why did you try not to think about that?" “Well because I’ve seen it happen and then go the other way” And then he used an example. “There was this guy, he was a young actor, and he was part of our crowd in New York. He'd been doing okay, but we were all in the same boat. Then all of a sudden he got a lead role. He's one of the two leads in a brand new movie by a director who had just done a smash hit.” And he's talking about Larry Pierce (the director) and uh... Goodbye Columbus. ”And he started dining out on it. And all of a sudden I go to the places that we used to go to, and now he's there and everyone's kind of revolving around him. He's kind of holding court. He's not doing anything bad; he's just arisen in the way that none of us have - and we're all treating him different. Then the movie comes out; nobody likes it - The movie comes out, and it goes away, and he's exactly in the same place he was. And I just wanted to make sure that that would never happen to me because I watched it happen to him.” Quote from Video Archives Podcast, sourced from James Whale Bake Sale YouTube channel. Clip below from the Godfather Part II (1974)
2:14

Quentin Tarantino recounts a dinner with Robert De Niro during the making of Jackie Brown, where he asked him whether he understood when he landed the role of Vito in The Godfather Part II, that it would change his life. De Niro’s answer revealed a great deal about his mindset at the time. “I was working with Robert De Niro on Jackie brown, and we went out to dinner once. - When he got Vito in the Godfather Part II, that was going to be a big thing for him. He won the Oscar for it - it set him up to be a movie star. So I asked him - and I've asked this to quite a few actors when it comes to when they got the role that would end up changing their career - did he realize that the moment when he got the role, that it would have this sort of effect? And he goes oh, “I tried not to let it do that. I tried not to think about that” I go, "really? and why did you try not to think about that?" “Well because I’ve seen it happen and then go the other way” And then he used an example. “There was this guy, he was a young actor, and he was part of our crowd in New York. He'd been doing okay, but we were all in the same boat. Then all of a sudden he got a lead role. He's one of the two leads in a brand new movie by a director who had just done a smash hit.” And he's talking about Larry Pierce (the director) and uh... Goodbye Columbus. ”And he started dining out on it. And all of a sudden I go to the places that we used to go to, and now he's there and everyone's kind of revolving around him. He's kind of holding court. He's not doing anything bad; he's just arisen in the way that none of us have - and we're all treating him different. Then the movie comes out; nobody likes it - The movie comes out, and it goes away, and he's exactly in the same place he was. And I just wanted to make sure that that would never happen to me because I watched it happen to him.” Quote from Video Archives Podcast, sourced from James Whale Bake Sale YouTube channel. Clip below from the Godfather Part II (1974)

Gangster Cinema Central

97,458 views • 4 months ago

Russell Brand Goes Quiet as Florida Surgeon General Drops a Bomb on Dr. Anthony Fauci Dr. Joseph Ladapo did not mince his words. Russell Brand asked, “Can you tell us the lessons we can learn from the figure of Anthony Fauci.” Dr. Ladapo responded, “Maybe lesson number one is to really examine the deliverer of your information. I think a lot of people, early on, were just completely snowed by Dr. Fauci.” “But there were a few voices that could see him for who he is.” “And who he is is a dishonest, self-serving political animal who happens to have scientific training.” “And we saw him…he misled people in so many ways. The whole mask thing was just epic. He was sitting in that 60 Minutes interview saying, ‘No one really needs to wear one.’ Which actually was consistent with the science, because the science hasn’t been supportive.” “And then he flipped the script, and we were up to maybe two or three masks by the time the pandemic was actually starting to cool down.” “So you’ve got to look at the sources of information and really feel whether they resonate with you in terms of your connection with what feels true.” “And he clearly…I don’t have anything against him, actually…but you can look at him, and he is obviously a dishonest and untrustworthy person.”
7:05

Russell Brand Goes Quiet as Florida Surgeon General Drops a Bomb on Dr. Anthony Fauci Dr. Joseph Ladapo did not mince his words. Russell Brand asked, “Can you tell us the lessons we can learn from the figure of Anthony Fauci.” Dr. Ladapo responded, “Maybe lesson number one is to really examine the deliverer of your information. I think a lot of people, early on, were just completely snowed by Dr. Fauci.” “But there were a few voices that could see him for who he is.” “And who he is is a dishonest, self-serving political animal who happens to have scientific training.” “And we saw him…he misled people in so many ways. The whole mask thing was just epic. He was sitting in that 60 Minutes interview saying, ‘No one really needs to wear one.’ Which actually was consistent with the science, because the science hasn’t been supportive.” “And then he flipped the script, and we were up to maybe two or three masks by the time the pandemic was actually starting to cool down.” “So you’ve got to look at the sources of information and really feel whether they resonate with you in terms of your connection with what feels true.” “And he clearly…I don’t have anything against him, actually…but you can look at him, and he is obviously a dishonest and untrustworthy person.”

Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,730,773 views • 2 years ago

Open Championship leader Sam Burns played with Bryson DeChambeau today and he said the fans were very supportive of him after yesterday’s ruling. He also said he didn’t think Bryson deserved the penalty: “I thought the fans were very supportive of Bryson today. We didn't discuss it any. “In my personal opinion, I honestly feel bad for Bryson in the situation that he was in. From my perspective, I didn't feel like maybe there was enough evidence for him to deserve a penalty there. “I feel bad for him. I think he played an incredible round of golf late yesterday, and it's unfortunate to have something kind of like that where they come in after your round and tell you you're being docked two shots. “But props to him. He came out and played a really nice round of golf today, and that takes a lot of grit to be able to come out and do that. So I was impressed.” The Open
0:44

Open Championship leader Sam Burns played with Bryson DeChambeau today and he said the fans were very supportive of him after yesterday’s ruling. He also said he didn’t think Bryson deserved the penalty: “I thought the fans were very supportive of Bryson today. We didn't discuss it any. “In my personal opinion, I honestly feel bad for Bryson in the situation that he was in. From my perspective, I didn't feel like maybe there was enough evidence for him to deserve a penalty there. “I feel bad for him. I think he played an incredible round of golf late yesterday, and it's unfortunate to have something kind of like that where they come in after your round and tell you you're being docked two shots. “But props to him. He came out and played a really nice round of golf today, and that takes a lot of grit to be able to come out and do that. So I was impressed.” The Open

Flushing It

1,056,137 views • 1 month ago

.Bari Weiss in her CBS Mornings debut, promoting her town hall tomorrow with Erika Kirk and taking aim at those who celebrated Charlie’s assassination and the conspiracy theorists claiming she had something to do it... “I think Erika Kirk is a victim of what could be a very, very disturbing version of America. In other words, her husband was speaking on a college campus. Whether you agreed with him or not, he was practicing the most fundamental of American rights, he was trying to persuade people with words and then he got a bullet to his neck as he was speaking to someone that disagreed with him. Someone, by the way, who was in the audience that night. In the days and weeks that followed, the number of people in this country and not just lunatics on the internet hiding behind anonymous accounts, but prominent people justified his death with the idea that words are violence rather than violence being violence signifies something quite alarming. The idea that he somehow had it coming because people disagreed with him.” “The second thing is that in — he was murdered three months ago. If you go on the internet and frankly it is leapt beyond the internet into real life and you talk to many seemingly sane people, they do not believe that the 22-year-old named Tyler Robinson that has been arrested and charged with his murder is the actual murderer. “They believe any number of theories. They believe Erika Kirk was his Mossad handler and he was killed by a foreign government. They believe she was tracked by Egyptian planes. They believe that the rings on her hand are signs of illuminati. The theories themselves are absurd. What matters is that because — she speaks about this in the interview, the brain rot that social media is allowing to spread, the way that it is detaching us from humanity, from our ability to talk to one another and our ability to discern the truth from just out and out lies is something that is incredibly important as a theme, I think. So, she was able to speak to both of those things in a way that’s incredibly compelling.”
2:01

.Bari Weiss in her CBS Mornings debut, promoting her town hall tomorrow with Erika Kirk and taking aim at those who celebrated Charlie’s assassination and the conspiracy theorists claiming she had something to do it... “I think Erika Kirk is a victim of what could be a very, very disturbing version of America. In other words, her husband was speaking on a college campus. Whether you agreed with him or not, he was practicing the most fundamental of American rights, he was trying to persuade people with words and then he got a bullet to his neck as he was speaking to someone that disagreed with him. Someone, by the way, who was in the audience that night. In the days and weeks that followed, the number of people in this country and not just lunatics on the internet hiding behind anonymous accounts, but prominent people justified his death with the idea that words are violence rather than violence being violence signifies something quite alarming. The idea that he somehow had it coming because people disagreed with him.” “The second thing is that in — he was murdered three months ago. If you go on the internet and frankly it is leapt beyond the internet into real life and you talk to many seemingly sane people, they do not believe that the 22-year-old named Tyler Robinson that has been arrested and charged with his murder is the actual murderer. “They believe any number of theories. They believe Erika Kirk was his Mossad handler and he was killed by a foreign government. They believe she was tracked by Egyptian planes. They believe that the rings on her hand are signs of illuminati. The theories themselves are absurd. What matters is that because — she speaks about this in the interview, the brain rot that social media is allowing to spread, the way that it is detaching us from humanity, from our ability to talk to one another and our ability to discern the truth from just out and out lies is something that is incredibly important as a theme, I think. So, she was able to speak to both of those things in a way that’s incredibly compelling.”

Curtis Houck

78,679 views • 8 months ago

There’s a new claim that “essentially, all that happened was Trump got tired, took control and forced it on Netanyahu, and this is basically the same deal that could have been reached a year earlier,” with the disturbing implication, that’s horrible to say, that IDF soldiers died in vain for a cause that had already been achieved. So, let’s revisit the plans that were laid out by both the current and former American administrations to see if they match up. For example, the Biden plan from June 1, 2024, which was met with considerable enthusiasm, and was even later acknowledged as Netanyahu’s plan. I want to highlight the difference. In the first phase, the IDF should have already pulled back to roughly its current position, and then it was just about releasing humanitarian hostages. As if not all of them are “humanitarian.” Then it transitioned to discussing the release of living hostages. In this phase, the IDF would withdraw from all of Gaza, until the last centimetre, while all the dead hostages remain in Gaza. It’s as different as day and night. Here, everyone is returning, including the dead, and the IDF is still in half of Gaza. This isn’t just about some desire to maintain an occupation or garrison force, but rather to ensure that Hamas disarms — something that didn’t happen in the Biden proposal. So now let’s move on to the Witkoff plan, much closer to us, much better for Israel, but still different. There was talk of releasing half of the dead hostages, but then a temporary ceasefire for two months of negotiations to end the war, and then the IDF would withdraw from more places than it is now, and there would be a guarantee that the war would not be renewed. Once again, we see that there was no connection between the IDF remaining on the ground and the promise that Hamas would disarm, especially while some of the hostages are still there. The greatness of this outline is this issue. I also want to say something general about the matter of responsibility. As ridiculous as it was on October 7 and afterwards to hear from Netanyahu’s supporters that the one who is to blame is the IDF chief of staff, the Shin Bet chief, the attorney general and the Military Advocate General, and that Netanyahu has no part in it — it’s as ridiculous as it is that now they’re saying, “Thank you Trump and thank you Nitzan Alon, and thank you to all of them and to the Qatari prime minister, and Netanyahu and Ron Dermer have nothing to do with it at all.” Indeed, Netanyahu had a very large part in the failure of October 7, and he also has a very large part together with Dermer in this deal. By the way, how does that connect to what Kushner said tonight in Egypt? He said that both the prime minister and Dermer made very big compromises and took risks to see the end of the war. I would like to make a suggestion. Once upon a time, when there was only one channel and people didn’t like the commentators, they said, “Watch the game without the commentary.” I say, let’s watch Trump and Netanyahu’s move without the commentary, because there are a lot of conversations, and this and that, and slander, and sometimes even quotes, but in practice there has never been a president and a prime minister who acted like this, and the results are evident from Iran, through the Golan Heights, through the embassy and now Gaza.
2:39

There’s a new claim that “essentially, all that happened was Trump got tired, took control and forced it on Netanyahu, and this is basically the same deal that could have been reached a year earlier,” with the disturbing implication, that’s horrible to say, that IDF soldiers died in vain for a cause that had already been achieved. So, let’s revisit the plans that were laid out by both the current and former American administrations to see if they match up. For example, the Biden plan from June 1, 2024, which was met with considerable enthusiasm, and was even later acknowledged as Netanyahu’s plan. I want to highlight the difference. In the first phase, the IDF should have already pulled back to roughly its current position, and then it was just about releasing humanitarian hostages. As if not all of them are “humanitarian.” Then it transitioned to discussing the release of living hostages. In this phase, the IDF would withdraw from all of Gaza, until the last centimetre, while all the dead hostages remain in Gaza. It’s as different as day and night. Here, everyone is returning, including the dead, and the IDF is still in half of Gaza. This isn’t just about some desire to maintain an occupation or garrison force, but rather to ensure that Hamas disarms — something that didn’t happen in the Biden proposal. So now let’s move on to the Witkoff plan, much closer to us, much better for Israel, but still different. There was talk of releasing half of the dead hostages, but then a temporary ceasefire for two months of negotiations to end the war, and then the IDF would withdraw from more places than it is now, and there would be a guarantee that the war would not be renewed. Once again, we see that there was no connection between the IDF remaining on the ground and the promise that Hamas would disarm, especially while some of the hostages are still there. The greatness of this outline is this issue. I also want to say something general about the matter of responsibility. As ridiculous as it was on October 7 and afterwards to hear from Netanyahu’s supporters that the one who is to blame is the IDF chief of staff, the Shin Bet chief, the attorney general and the Military Advocate General, and that Netanyahu has no part in it — it’s as ridiculous as it is that now they’re saying, “Thank you Trump and thank you Nitzan Alon, and thank you to all of them and to the Qatari prime minister, and Netanyahu and Ron Dermer have nothing to do with it at all.” Indeed, Netanyahu had a very large part in the failure of October 7, and he also has a very large part together with Dermer in this deal. By the way, how does that connect to what Kushner said tonight in Egypt? He said that both the prime minister and Dermer made very big compromises and took risks to see the end of the war. I would like to make a suggestion. Once upon a time, when there was only one channel and people didn’t like the commentators, they said, “Watch the game without the commentary.” I say, let’s watch Trump and Netanyahu’s move without the commentary, because there are a lot of conversations, and this and that, and slander, and sometimes even quotes, but in practice there has never been a president and a prime minister who acted like this, and the results are evident from Iran, through the Golan Heights, through the embassy and now Gaza.

Amit Segal

298,292 views • 10 months ago

🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)
3:29

🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)

Joe Murgia

30,311 views • 8 months ago

Pastor Rob McCoy sends a strong message to Jimmy Kimmel: Put down the rhetoric. Charlie Kirk was never your enemy, he saw you as his opportunity. “Jimmy, Charlie wasn't your enemy. He looked at you as his opportunity. If you were at one of his tabling events on a campus, he'd bring you to the front of the line. He believed in dialogue and the freedom of speech and logos, and he wanted to dialogue with you. He was never your enemy.” “Your ideology was his enemy. But he saw you created in the image of God, that you were fearfully and wonderfully made, were created equal, not in capacity, but in dignity. And he would honor you and he would dignify you. And I think all of us would do well to do that for each other in this season. Just put down the rhetoric.”
5:24

Pastor Rob McCoy sends a strong message to Jimmy Kimmel: Put down the rhetoric. Charlie Kirk was never your enemy, he saw you as his opportunity. “Jimmy, Charlie wasn't your enemy. He looked at you as his opportunity. If you were at one of his tabling events on a campus, he'd bring you to the front of the line. He believed in dialogue and the freedom of speech and logos, and he wanted to dialogue with you. He was never your enemy.” “Your ideology was his enemy. But he saw you created in the image of God, that you were fearfully and wonderfully made, were created equal, not in capacity, but in dignity. And he would honor you and he would dignify you. And I think all of us would do well to do that for each other in this season. Just put down the rhetoric.”

Benny Johnson

206,926 views • 11 months ago

Shaq says Michael Jordan is the GOAT because he never lost in the Finals 🐐 ​"Mike is the greatest of all time because of how he played, how he dominated, and he never lost in the finals. So, I know a lot of people going to see this like you said and 'oh, he doing this and he do that.' I played with Kobe, I know what a killer he was, but to me as a kid and going against him, then being the only guy to beat him in the playoffs for him to retire after three and then come back and get three, yeah, he was a different animal." (Via The Big Podcast )
0:26

Shaq says Michael Jordan is the GOAT because he never lost in the Finals 🐐 ​"Mike is the greatest of all time because of how he played, how he dominated, and he never lost in the finals. So, I know a lot of people going to see this like you said and 'oh, he doing this and he do that.' I played with Kobe, I know what a killer he was, but to me as a kid and going against him, then being the only guy to beat him in the playoffs for him to retire after three and then come back and get three, yeah, he was a different animal." (Via The Big Podcast )

NBABase

129,768 views • 5 months ago