Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

This guy is PMO so bad and it hasn't even aired yet. So apparently these are the BEST clips. ACCORDING TO PATRICK 1. He came home to find his half dead wife gurgling on the lawn. First thought: "omfg what did she do this time." 2. He finds 3...

68,914 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

The vet had been honest with the Hollands. Baxter didn't have much time left, and the kindest thing they could do now was make whatever he had left count. So on a warm Saturday in June , instead of a normal quiet day at home, they loaded the old Bernese into the back of the van and drove him two hours to the coast. Baxter had never seen the ocean. He was 13, and his whole life had been the backyard and the same worn spot on the living room rug. The kids wanted him to see something big before he went. He moved slow getting out of the van. His back legs weren't what they used to be, and the boys had to help him down onto the sand. For a second he just stood there at the top of the beach, nose up, taking in all that salt air and open water like he couldn't quite believe it. Then something in him shifted. He started down toward the surf on his own, stiff and determined, the way he used to trot to the door when the kids came home from school. When the first cold wave washed over his paws, his whole face lit up. He didn't run, he couldn't, but he waded in up to his chest and stood in the shallow water with the sun going down behind him, and the whole family just watched. Nobody said much. They didn't need to. They stayed until the light was almost gone, taking pictures, letting Baxter rest against their legs, giving him one perfect afternoon to hold onto. The vet was right about the time. Baxter left them a few weeks later, at home, surrounded by the people who loved him. But he saw the ocean first. And every one of them is glad they gave him that.

Gabriele Corno

119,678 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Dawah is deception. Why are you leaving out the context SeerahPro ? You know right after this he says he doesn’t remember well what he wrote in that entry on Muhaymin. Why leave that part out? He even goes on to say that section seems to be non-committal and he needs to go back and re-read it. So since you don’t want to show every one the full context, I’ll do it, and expose how you are lying now and lied in the debate. Sinai doesn’t help your claim that the Quran believes the previous scriptures were textually corrupted. He says he doesn’t think the Quran believes the previous scriptures were corrupted in the deep past and that they are unrecoverable (Clip 1). Now let’s look at the short clip you pulled in context (Clip 2). First, what he says does not affirm why you cited him to begin with, which is that the Quran is supposed to be a supreme authority and determine which parts of our scriptures are corrupt and which are not. In the very clip you pulled he says, “The Quran is claiming to be able to sort of determine the correct reading of these previous scriptures and to remedy misreading and misunderstandings.” So by arbiter he means it is not determining what parts of our scriptures are true or corrupted, it is only an arbiter in determining meaning. You just buried yourself by citing this, because you implied Sinai was saying the Quran is an arbiter for determining textual corruption, which he doesn’t say. It’s like you didn’t even pay attention to what you pulled. That is embarrassing. Second, right after this (in what you left out) the interviewer reminds him he entertained two possibilities in his book and was noncommittal. Sinai says he doesn’t remember what he said and was probably leaving open possibilities, which is what I already had to correct you on. If you go back to the book, once again, he said on page 707 essentially what I said, “Muhaymin, meanwhile, is derived from Syriac mhaymnā (or conceivably from its equivalent in some other form of Aramaic), a passive participle of the verb haymen and meaning ‘trustworthy, faithful, loyal.’” After this all he does in the book is mention other possibilities and the one you want is more contingent on non-canonical readings. But even if that interpretation is correct (which Sinai confirms in this interview is his view) it doesn’t help you, because you misunderstood what Sinai means by ‘arbiter.’ In Clip 3 he first says, “So I need to reread that entry. I guess it seems to be very non-committal.” But remember you said (Clip 4), “In his 'Key Terms of the Quran' he explicitly says that Muhaymin means the Quran is the arbiter of the contents.” That is incorrect. He did not explicitly say that. Why did you lie? In Clip 3 he goes on to say “But I think entrusted with authority can mean, authorized to sort of authoritatively interpret and determine especially theological significance.” So you don’t even understand what Sinai means by “arbiter.” He doesn’t mean what you mean, that the Quran is determining which parts of our scriptures are true and corrupted, but that it is an arbiter of meaning. The fact that you still do not see this means you are beyond delusional. You never should have cited Sinai because he doesn’t help you at all. The funny thing is we were already planning to go live tomorrow to review this interview because he doesn’t help you at all and unintentionally helps with the Islamic Dilemma.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

36,857 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

"We do adoption events every month. Yesterday was our biggest one. Forty-two dogs found homes. It was a wonderful day. Winston did not find a home. He is eleven years old. He is large. He is silver-gray and his whole muzzle is white and his eyes are the color of a winter morning and he is the gentlest dog I have ever put on a leash. He sat in the same spot for six hours. He did not pace. He did not bark. He watched every dog around him get chosen and he wagged his tail for every family that walked past him without stopping. Every single one. For six hours. At 5pm when the last family had left and the last car had pulled out of the parking lot I turned around and Winston was sitting at the edge of the empty lot wagging his tail at the space where the people had been. I sat down on the asphalt beside him. I put my hand on his silver back. He leaned into me. I don't have a word for what I felt. I have worked in rescue for nine years. I have never sat on a parking lot asphalt at the end of a failed adoption event and felt so completely undone and so completely certain simultaneously. Undone because he deserves everything. Certain because he is going to be okay. Both at the same time. Both because of him. He wagged at the empty parking lot. That is who Winston is. That is who he has been every day of his eleven years. Share this for Winston. He wagged at the empty parking lot. The least we can do is find him someone to wag at who stays.

ماعز-

34,594 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Regarding the Eric Trump / Daniel Cormier “text scandal”, I am open to being convinced otherwise, but I do not believe for one second that Eric Trump would text something so stupid to Daniel Cormier. It’s laughably stupid on its face to think that Eric Trump would ask a UFC commentator if any of the fights are “rigged”. That he would ask it in writing. And that he would not, for example, just pick up the phone and call Dana White or Joe Rogan himself. That said, I just want to understand what happened. Daniel Cormier said he was hacked. Is that to say he was hacked at the text level, or the X post level? Did he in fact make the post, and delete it? If he made the post, did he do it as a joke to illustrate how absurd the text hack was, but realized how the post could be misinterpreted as real? Or did someone make the post from his X account he subsequently deleted it. I know there are some who are going to say he made the post in earnest, thinking the text messages were real, intending to call out the “corruption”, and he has since been threatened, deleted the post, and claimed “hack”, etc. I can tell you exactly why I do not believe, even if he made the post, he did it believing the text message was real, intending to call out the “corruption”. If Cormier seriously thought the text messages were real, he would understand that by posting it publicly, it would literally destroy the UFC, his livelihood and his legacy - in addition to the legacy of everyone who has ever competed in the UFC. There is no realm of the universe in which even if it were in fact a real text that he actually received from Eric Trump, he would post it publicly. Because it would mean the end of the UFC. I just want to know if he actually made the post from his X account, or if the entire post was the result of a hack (hence the subsequent deleting of the post). Serious and sincere questions for clarity that would benefit everyone Eric Trump

Viva Frei

30,167 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce