Waching daily Feb 1 2018

Hi, I'm Chris Whitley-Jones from PRB Accountants, down in Sussex. We're a firm

of accountants that specialise in acting for network marketing distributors. When

you start your network marketing business there are a number of different

ways that you can trade your business; trading styles they're called - a sole

trader, partnership, limited company, or limited liability partnership. There are

advantages and disadvantages of those different trading styles but we advise,

when you're starting out, to either do the business as a sole trader - if you're

doing it on your own, or as a partnership - if you're doing it with someone else. And

the important thing to say is that you're not stuck with the trading style.

You can change to another style later on. If you want to find out more, have a look

at our YouTube account (PRB Accountants Network Marketing Specialists) - there are other videos on there with other topics, or

give us a call (on 01444 458 252) and ask any questions that you want to. Thank you.

For more infomation >> Network Marketing Accountancy Specialists - What Is The Best Trading Style - Duration: 0:59.

-------------------------------------------

Is Musical Talent in This Dominican's Blood? - Duration: 6:03.

For more infomation >> Is Musical Talent in This Dominican's Blood? - Duration: 6:03.

-------------------------------------------

Kellyanne Conway Is Furious That Fact Checkers Are Calling Out Trump - Duration: 4:27.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway has absolutely had it with the liberal media and

especially the liberal fact-checkers that keep calling out her boss for his constant

lies.

On Wednesday, following the State of the Union address, Kellyanne Conway appeared on Mark

Simone's radio program in New York, where the two of them talked about the fact that

those fact-checkers clearly have some kind of bias against the president.

Listen to what the two had to say about it:

Hey, Kellyanne Conway.

Here's something you guys gotta work on.

Liberals seize more and more control of the infrastructure.

They control the newspapers.

They control the networks.

In the last few years, they've taken total control of the fact-checking sites, and they're

very slanted, factcheck.org and all of them.

The Washington Post, the New York Times, I mean obviously there's not a really good fact-checking

site that doesn't have a lot of bias in it.

Something's gotta be done about that.

Yes, fact-checking the fact-checkers.

It's not a bad idea, only because ... the people will say, "Well, the facts speak for

themselves!"

Right, but you're selecting what you think should be fact-checking, so this industry

was not at a fever pitch when Barack Obama was president.

People will say, "Because he didn't lie!"

Okay, well.

The big one was "You can keep your plan, you can keep your doctors," right there with my

eyes closed, not even thinking about it, I came up with two whoppers.

There had to be more.

And so, you know, you're right though.

It's not just academia.

It's not just the mainstream media.

It's not just so many organs and organizations that are slanted toward this president and

toward his agenda, but now the fact-checking industry.

But look, America are their own fact checkers in terms of whether they believe the tax cut,

the big lie that it's not going to happen.

They know if their 401ks are fatter, if their retirement savings, their pensions, their

kids' educational funds have increased or decreased.

That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the woman who coined the term 'alternative facts' believes

that fact-checkers are just being mean to the president because they don't like him.

They didn't fact check Obama, according to what she just said in that clip, and he lied

all the time!

So why, suddenly, are these liberal fact-checkers just now going after the president of the

United States?

Well, here's the thing.

Pretty much any politician that says anything publicly is fact-checked these days.

We have fact-checking websites.

We have newspapers that have entire departments devoted to fact-checking what politicians

say.

And occasionally, a Democrat says something that gets rated as a pants on fire type lie.

But more often than not, the people who earn that rating are Republicans, especially in

the last year: Donald Trump.

It's not that they have a bias against Donald Trump, it's that Donald Trump clearly has

a bias against telling the truth, as do you, Kellyanne Conway!

You invented your own set of facts.

You've invented your own reality in which you and the president live fact-free, from

the rest of the world.

That's not how it works.

Just because somebody calls you out on a lie doesn't mean that they're biased against you,

it means that they're biased against liars.

That's the difference here.

And I know it can't be easy to have to go out there every day and defend a president

who you know is lying through his teeth every time he opens his mouth, but that's the job

you chose and I guess that's what you have to do.

Meanwhile, you also say that Americans are their own fact-checkers.

Well, if that's the case, then your guy, your boss, your president is in a hell of a lot

more trouble than he would be if it was only those newspapers doing the fact-checking,

because a majority of people in this country do not believe a word that Donald Trump says

and they do not believe that he is trustworthy, and they don't even believe that he is a good

role model for their children.

If I were you, I would leave that job up to the actual fact-checkers, because if you're

putting it on the American public, then you're in bigger trouble than you think.

For more infomation >> Kellyanne Conway Is Furious That Fact Checkers Are Calling Out Trump - Duration: 4:27.

-------------------------------------------

Woningen binnenvallen van mensen die migranten opvangen, is intimidatie. - Duration: 2:40.

For more infomation >> Woningen binnenvallen van mensen die migranten opvangen, is intimidatie. - Duration: 2:40.

-------------------------------------------

Why is Christianity acceptable? (part 1) - Duration: 3:35.

The worst person we can conceive of is Dracula.

That man was responsible for the suffering of an unimaginable amount of people.

Therefore, we consider Dracula an unacceptable person.

Dracula is absolutely evil.

He would torture people for as long as he possibly could.

If it would have been in his power, he would have made his enemies suffer for eternity.

If it was in his power, Dracula would have created hell.

And hell is what I want to talk about, today.

It's absolutely mandatory to believe in hell when believing in God.

And it is also mandatory to believe that hell is eternal.

To belief otherwise is called disbelief and it's unacceptable in our society.

You must believe that hell is a place of eternal torment.

Right?

Which is really awful, actually.

Infinite punishment for finite sins.

Not an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but a completely disproportionate retribution.

You know what suffering is?

Being impaled by Dracula, is a good example of suffering.

But I want you to imagine a type of suffering that you are familiar with.

School.

Imagine being in school.

Remember how it was.

Go back to all the stress and fear that you had to suffer through.

And now imagine that that would have gone on for an eternity.

Imagine a school where there is suffering without relief.

School in itself already makes people suicidal.

And that's just fact, that's not just something I say because I really hate school,

okay.

It is a fact.

People want to end their existence because they literally cannot take it anymore.

They cannot take any more, even when there is relief.

But what if school was to be infinite.

An unending misery of history, physics, biology, literature and most of all blasphemous religious indoctrination.

How many more would not be able to take it?

How many more people would commit suicide in such an infinite school horror?

Do you reckon there would even be one person out there with the will to live?

I am afraid that there would be none.

But luckily, there is no such thing as infinite school.

Thank God there isn't.

But a huge number of people believe there is something even worse.

Hell.

There's either flames, or complete emptiness, depending on your denomination.

But either way, it is eternal.

And there is no relief.

And even no suicide.

So when you reach the point that you can't take it anymore, you still have an eternity more.

Most secular people agree that this is a bizarre concept.

But why isn't this despised?

Why is everyone so extremely respectful towards such a concept?

Dracula believed that his enemies deserved the torture that he gave them.

But we do not respect the views of Dracula.

We are abhorred by his actions.

We know from history that technically,

the people Dracula tortured were indeed morally questionable people.

But we condemn him still, because this retribution was disproportionate.

Those people did not deserve to be impaled.

So, I think you'all see where I'm going with this.

There are a lot of christians who have atheist friends.

But how can an atheist possibly befriend a christian?

How can they accept that a person they love,

believes that it is righteous for them to go through an infinite amount of suffering.

And not even because they're a bad person.

How can the atheist accept such a thing?

Why do they not hate their friend for believing and condoning such a horrid thing?

What in oblivion is making them so bloody tolerant of such blasphemous contentions?

For more infomation >> Why is Christianity acceptable? (part 1) - Duration: 3:35.

-------------------------------------------

Folge 2062: Ein Flirt vom anderen Stern (Dahoam is Dahoam v. 08.02.) - Duration: 28:02.

For more infomation >> Folge 2062: Ein Flirt vom anderen Stern (Dahoam is Dahoam v. 08.02.) - Duration: 28:02.

-------------------------------------------

What is psychotherapy? - Duration: 4:01.

For more infomation >> What is psychotherapy? - Duration: 4:01.

-------------------------------------------

What is Geopolitics? - Duration: 3:08.

Geopolitics is sticky but it is a concept that sort of puts the place,

geography, in the center. It's understanding of contextual issues,

it's an analytical perspective that takes geography and contextual issues

into account.

My understanding of geopolitics is of course shaped by my

own background, I'm an American citizen with Chinese background which gives me

actually a slightly, I would say state-centric understanding of how geopolitics

governs the world today, but what I think is really important about this

program in particular is the critical angle of what geopolitics can and should

be, in relation to not only human society but also to the environment.

Geopolitics for me is about the context that the politics is situated in, so for

example what types of resources the country has or where they are situated

on the map.

My understanding of geopolitics and I think this is like a newer understanding of it

is that the strategy and interest is not just coming from politics itself

and it's not just for the state, but it's for the whole earth and

the world itself.

It's not just for humans but for every being

and that's why I'm really glad to be doing research on this.

I'm thinking about geopolitics as

politics and the relationships between different groups

and for example states or urban areas, or citizens in different parts of the world,

the relationship between them and in a geographical context, how the

geographical context influences these relationships. That it doesn't have to be

about states or nations, it can also be between urban areas in

different parts of the world or citizen groups in different parts of the world.

How do geographical contexts influence these relationships?

Geopolitics I think is important to understand or at least carry with you

when you look at, as my interest is how states act and this new, we're in

the Anthropocene if you want to call it that, or in this new area,

where you have climate change that is happening and I think that you

cannot look at this without understanding the geopolitics. You need

to understand why states may act in certain ways, you need to understand how

northern countries might act and see things in a way that countries in

the South may not, or even in the East. And I think that geopolitics

is an important concept to carry with you when you're looking at

climate change and environmental politics.

For more infomation >> What is Geopolitics? - Duration: 3:08.

-------------------------------------------

Prince Harry's engagement to Meghan Markle is step to change 'monarchy vs everyone else' - Duration: 3:09.

Prince Harry's engagement to Meghan Markle is step to change 'monarchy vs everyone else', says Priyanka Chopra

Priyanka Chopra has admitted that she believes Meghan Markles engagement to Prince Harry is a big step in the direction of so many things – including the monarchy versus everyone else.

Meghan has been good friends with Priyanka for years, and rumours continue to swirl that Meghan will ask Priyanka to be a bridesmaid at the royal wedding.

But in a new interview the Baywatch actress wasnt giving anything away; If you see me there, you'll know, she simply said, revealing, well, nothing.

Harry and Meghan will tie the knot on Saturday 19 May at St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle; by choosing a Saturday they have gone against centuries of royal tradition.

But as Priyanka suggests, Meghans addition to the royal family is not traditional either.

I don't think anybody else would be able to do it the way she will.

She's just right for it, she said of Meghan modernising the family.

Speaking to Harpers Bazaar Arabia, she said: She's an icon, truly, that girls can look up to, that women can look up to.

She's normal, she's sweet, she's nice, she thinks about the world, wants to change it and this was even before any of this happened.

So I do think Meghan being a part of the royal family is a big step in the direction of so many things; of women, of feminism, of diversity, of race, of the monarchy versus everyone else.

It's a beautiful step in the right direction. Meghan, who is to become a British citizen, is being both baptised and confirmed ahead of the religious ceremony.

Romantic Prince Harry designed the engagement ring himself, using diamonds which belonged to his mother Diana, Princess of Wales.

The two outside stones came from the late princess' personal collection and are a poignant tribute to Diana in the year of the 20th anniversary of her death.

       .

For more infomation >> Prince Harry's engagement to Meghan Markle is step to change 'monarchy vs everyone else' - Duration: 3:09.

-------------------------------------------

Folge 2060: Landfräuliches Grasgeflüster (Dahoam is Dahoam v. 06.02.) - Duration: 28:01.

For more infomation >> Folge 2060: Landfräuliches Grasgeflüster (Dahoam is Dahoam v. 06.02.) - Duration: 28:01.

-------------------------------------------

Folge 2061: Wo ist Bruni? (Dahoam is Dahoam v. 07.02.) - Duration: 28:09.

For more infomation >> Folge 2061: Wo ist Bruni? (Dahoam is Dahoam v. 07.02.) - Duration: 28:09.

-------------------------------------------

NCRV De Verwondering Levensvragen: Wat is de zin van het lijden? (Gerbert van Loenen) - Duration: 5:48.

For more infomation >> NCRV De Verwondering Levensvragen: Wat is de zin van het lijden? (Gerbert van Loenen) - Duration: 5:48.

-------------------------------------------

What Drake Thinks About Rihanna Pregnancy Rumors Is Made-Up Story - Duration: 8:11.

What Drake Thinks About Rihanna Pregnancy Rumors Is Made-Up Story

A website is purporting to know what Drake thinks about pregnancy rumors surrounding Rihanna.

Unsurprisingly, this story was made-up.

Gossip Cop can bust it.

Though Rihanna isn't pregnant, HollywoodLife is still trying to milk the untrue claim.

After first spreading the misinformation, the site claimed to know Chris Brown's reaction to the pregnancy rumors.

Now after manufacturing that tall tale, the blog is offering one from Drake's alleged perspective.

Of course, this was concocted, too.

And right of the bat, it's clear the outlet doesn't know what it's talking about.

"Drake was admiring his once lady love Rihanna when they attended the 2018 Grammy Awards on Jan.28," contends the online publication.

The problem? Drake skipped the Grammys this year and did not attend the ceremony, just as he didn't last year.

Yet here is HollywoodLies, as it's known, acting as if he was there.

A so-called "source close to the hip-hop star" is quoted as saying, "Drake thought Rihanna looked incredibly sexy at the Grammys.

He did not think she looked pregnant at all, just healthy, happy and really sexy." Is it possible the rapper caught her performance on TV or online? Sure.

But then it becomes even more apparent these quotes were fabricated.

The alleged snitch goes on to claim, "Watching her dance and shaking her body all over the stage really turned him on, he was totally into it.".

This is the second time in recent days, and one of many times overall, that HollywoodLies has talked about a star being "turned on."

Gossip Cop is going to be blunt: People genuinely connected to A-listers don't go around talking to the gossip media about what turns them on.

There's a reason such salacious claims are typically only found on that website and not elsewhere.

And in another tip-off that this narrative is bogus, the blog ends by asking readers, "Do you think Rihanna could be pregnant?".

Real media outlets don't look to consumers for the answers.

Journalists are supposed to investigate and provide them themselves.

And that's what Gossip Cop did on Monday, when we confirmed Rihanna is not pregnant.

Furthermore, that's also what we did last May when HollywoodLies speculated that she was not only expecting but that Drake or Brown might be the father.

Mind you, the publication also ran stories about Rihanna being pregnant with their babies in previous years, too.

(See screengrabs below.) If the site actually had legitimate sources connected to these stars, it wouldn't have been caught pushing so many falsehoods.

And when it was alleged last year that Drake might have a baby of his own on the way, HollywoodLies did the opposite of this current story, claiming to know Rihanna's reaction to the rumors.

The site apparently wants readers to believe that these stars are constantly reacting to any development in a former love's life.

That's not the case.

And in none of these instances did the webloid have inside knowledge.

It's all been made-up.