reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Wars, even cultural ones, have casualties and cause collateral damage. We must not let our fear of change harm our children or the potential harm that any fight may cause.

And y'all living. She won't let us get by, ma'am. What is wrong with you? I would hate to be your stepmom. Told you. No wonder she's back. I've asked you, please. You know what? You won't do all the kids. Need to be with no counsel. Because I

Demonizing children is wrong. We must prioritize their safety. As someone who has taught middle school and raised young people, I know the risks they face due to their youth. For instance, my own son once slid down the stairs, mistaking them for a home plate. Young people often make silly decisions. Therefore, it is crucial to invest in their support and ensure they feel supported.

I have an issue when it comes to targeting our kids and trying to change their gender. I don't care if a 40-year-old person wants to undergo gender reassignment, but I don't want to hear about it, pay for it, or be forced to acknowledge their chosen identity. Leave me alone and stay away from our children.

Why do you want to harm children? What is wrong with you? It shouldn't be about gender or profession; it's about the actions being taken.

Your neighbors, even those you trust, may turn you in if we become a Christian nationalist dictatorship. It's not just the police you should worry about; they won't have enough resources to monitor everyone. History shows that in times of fear, people look out for themselves. Take the example of Elizabeth von Thaden, who opposed the Nazis and helped those in hiding. Despite her good intentions, she was betrayed by a neighbor and executed. This pattern of betrayal is common throughout history. If you choose to resist a repressive regime, remember that help may not come from expected places, and it could be those closest to you who turn against you.

My concern is that you believe the First Amendment restricts the government during critical times. How can the government protect citizens if it can't remove harmful information? It seems like you think the government can't address the root of the issue.

There are predators on our streets who pose a threat to our loved ones. It doesn't matter if they had a troubled upbringing or if they are victims of society. The fact remains that they are capable of harming our families. We shouldn't waste time pondering why they commit these acts. Instead, we need to remove them from society to protect our families. We have an obligation to separate them from the rest of society and make our streets safer. It doesn't matter why they are criminals or antisocial; we must take action to keep them away from our loved ones.

I found a girl causing a mess in Walmart while her grandparents do nothing. I think she needs discipline or medication. I would handle it differently. I'm shocked by her behavior and want to know who her parents are. I would involve the authorities if needed.

My mom sent her art. I saw her through the window. I don't want to be a sex educator, just don't want to give kids porn in school. Miami is great, but there are concerns about bad weather. Criticizing gender affirming procedures versus cosmetic surgeries. I keep my house warm, people joke I'm a lizard person. I don't disclose my age online. I'm not trying to ban any books.

I don't want minors coming over late at night causing trouble. They make a lot of noise and bring big buses. It gets wild around 3 am. I stay in my own business and avoid them.

I want to trust you, but you won't have a conversation with me because I'm a good citizen. I won't believe anything you say because you're higher.

I asked him how we would know if he's in trouble and not okay, even if he says he's just going to stay home alone.

Are you saying parents cause problems? Should someone in charge of family outreach be complaining about parents? I don't know what you're talking about. Is that me in that video? I have no idea. I have no comment, so stand back. You can keep your hands off me.

When will you resist? How far will things go before you say no? Liberty means drawing a line and standing your ground, even if no one else does.

I don't want minors coming over late at night causing trouble. They bring big buses and cause chaos, especially around 3 am. I stay in my own lane and avoid them.

Our agenda being unchecked may corrupt your kids. Funny, but you're right.

I teach ballet to 5-year-old girls, but they don't respect authority and refuse to follow instructions. When I try to talk to their parents about it, they argue with me. One girl even said, "You're not my mom, you can't tell me what to do." It's disheartening to see parents not setting boundaries for their children. What's even worse is that these young girls are asking to listen to inappropriate music and twerking at such a young age. I try to expose them to age-appropriate activities, but it's difficult when they're exposed to raunchy music at home. It's really upsetting.

The conversation opens with Speaker 0 making a provocative claim that everything people experience, including rape and addiction, is attracted into their life, and that the people involved in rape or pedophilia are attracted to those acts. Speaker 1 pushes back, asking for clarification about cases of pedophilia and how these dynamics should be understood. Speaker 0 continues by saying that the children are attracted to the pedophile, and Speaker 1 challenges them to pursue the line of thought by asking to go there. They discuss how labels of good and bad are often tied to who one chooses to side with. Speaker 0 expresses discomfort with the implication of the discussion and provides a hypothetical: if someone assaulted his wife at home, he would “forcibly stop” them and would value stopping the act “100% certainly.” He argues that morality at the moment would drive one’s reaction to harm, and asserts that when one sees something as evil, one would act to stop it, emphasizing that it is evil in one’s perception. Speaker 0 then asserts a universal standard: it is not acceptable to beat a child to a pulp or to sexually assault a child. He argues that there is something fundamental inside humans—a driving force toward life, love, freedom, and the experience of living in the world—and when someone intentionally interferes with that, there is an obligation to try to prevent or stop them. He adds that one can override impulses, acknowledging personal temptation to harm that has been resisted. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of repressing desires and then attacking his customers publicly. He suggests Speaker 0 is taking information that contradicts his stated beliefs and refuses to broadcast it because it conflicts with his system, describing it as a fight that Speaker 0 is ready to engage in. The tension is evident as Speaker 0’s and Speaker 1’s reactions become increasingly heated; Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1’s hands are shaking. Speaker 1 criticizes the stance of not exposing certain information on the show, arguing that it challenges his beliefs and that he is unwilling to “pacify” his research for anyone. He asserts that there are upsides to events, even to the murder of children, stating that there are upsides to it. Speaker 0 concludes with an abrupt decision to stop the discussion: “I think we’re gonna have to stop here, John.”

The speaker states that if the FBI had been asking questions about human trafficking, they would have known. The speaker raised their son as a Christian. The speaker believes their son may do things people don't like, but he would never be involved in human trafficking.

We must take action against young people who pose a threat, regardless of their upbringing. If we don't intervene now, they may become predators in the future. Society's neglect has contributed to the presence of dangerous individuals on our streets. It is crucial to address this issue to protect our families.

The speaker confronts someone about hanging up a cross-border sign and tells them to throw it away. They argue about teaching their child and the speaker insists on keeping negative influences away. The speaker mentions an incident and tells the other person to teach the child properly. The conversation ends abruptly.

I called child services on someone because I was angry at them. I fabricated a story and exaggerated things to make it seem like their kids were being abused. Child services visited them and said they could lose their kids. I thought they deserved it for not being nice to me.

It's unfortunate another child's bad choice will affect him for life. The speaker has compassion for every human being. This is not a race issue, nor a black and white issue. The speaker does not want the situation politicized. The speaker does not appreciate online remarks from people who weren't present during the event.

I called child services on someone because I was angry at them. I made up a story and exaggerated things to make it seem like their kids were being abused. Child services visited them and said they could lose their kids. I thought they deserved it for not being nice to me.