Hey sexies! Make sure you guys are subscribed. If you're not subscribed, subscribe. And if you are subscribed, make sure you check the subscribe button to check and see if you are still subscribed because YouTube unsubscribes people. Make sure you guys leave this video a like because if you like it then click the like button because it shows me what you guys like and don't like so please do that. Hey guys! Hello everybody! Hi! Hey guys! Today we're going to be watching a movie that I just really wanted to watch today. This was really requested by no one. I decided that I wanted to watch Eitanya because I was going to watch it on my free time and I was like well just film this because I really want to just watch a film that I am obsessed with and I just want to watch it with you guys. So this will be like commentary but mostly me just saying oh my god I love that scene because I know we all love watching that. That is good content. My videos go either one of two ways. Oh my god I love that scene.  Last video I filmed I watched Ice Princess and now I'm going to watch Eitanya. I love Eitanya. I think it was snubbed and I'm here to tell you all the reasons why I think it was snubbed. Based on irony-free wildly contradictory totally true interviews with Tonya Harding and Jeff Galooly. Jeff Galooly. What kind of name is that? No wonder why he was insane. That's very close by the way I'm just saying. Before we even get into this movie I just want to say this movie really gave me a Tonya Harding redemption arc. I don't know if I should believe it or not but I was there for it. I was there for the Tonya Harding redemption arc. Hey guys you don't know this but when I said I paused I paused for like 20 or 30 minutes because I felt so incredibly sad and I kept drawing blanks when I was watching it. I only got 6 minutes into the movie and I could not get a word out of commentary and it made me really depressed like unreasonably sad. I got so unmotivated. It was basically a mental block when it came to making commentary and you guys don't care but I wanted to tell you to be honest.  That was fun. So maybe by the end of this filming I will have a zero commentary but we are not quitters. We're not quitters and we're going to try to do it again. So we're going to start off from what we left off and we're going to get through this movie and whether I throw away this entire video or not I'm going to get through this movie because I'm not a quitter. I would not quit. McKenna Grace is literally the end moment of literally everything. They cast her for everything and she literally knows the assignment every single time. I know every single little girl that is in the audition room gets scared. They're shaking in their boots when she comes into the room. I know they do. She just changes her hair color and then she's every single role because she knows the assignment.  I did not even know that Lovanna had a bird on her shoulder. Throughout like probably the first half of the movie until she like points at it or something or she like says something to it. I did not know that she had a bird on her shoulder. I kind of cried when he started making the fur coat. I really did almost like start to cry because I thought it was such it just it made me so emotional and it looked nice. Come on. She trained for the scene from that scene and gifted with Chris Evans. You know what I mean? She definitely took some of the inspiration from that scene. I know she did. I know she did because that scene and gifted literally made me cry. And now she does it again. She hits it again in this movie. Why does she play a prodigy in every single role? You're in my way.  You know what I mean? Why would you do that to me? Like you're really expecting me to believe that Margot Robbie is a teenager. 14, 15. Just because she has braces doesn't change. It doesn't mean it doesn't change anything. She literally looks like a grown adult.  I don't know how old Jeff is supposed to be, but you're telling me that these bitches are supposed to be going on a little high school date with another grown adult. This is just a freaking adult dinner. She is not supervising nothing.  I like how it's supposed to be way more awkward if they actually look like teenagers. It would be such a better scene if they actually look like teenagers.  It just doesn't seem as uncomfortable as they wanted that scene to be because Sebastian Stan is a grown adult and so is Margot Robbie. So I think that is my criticism of this film is that they should have actually casted teenagers for that scene because I think it would have actually made it better. You know I'm tightening up before you reconnect. Okay. Car boys? Boo! Get off the stage! Get out of here! We don't want you in this town! Car girls? Hubba hubba! Come here, sugar. I don't really know what that was supposed to be. I think I take it back though. I'm actually a pretty meek guy. Meek, more like beak.  The only reason why I think we should stop making skating shows is because I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually do CGI face work that makes it look real. We can make entire CGI, earthquakes and natural disasters. We can make whole entire universes. Magic exists. All of this stuff and we cannot track a face to make it look realistic in an ice skating show for Christ's sake. Oh my god. See that looks like a head that's about to be decapitated. It looks like it's floating off her head. Like that is insane looking. Like you're not going to do any shadow work to, like that's a floating head. Like it looks, okay, I'm going to do it. Why does he have the reverse Hitler massage? Because he doesn't have it right here, but he has it right here. What's up with that? It's a reverse Hitler. No words said, but it's one of the best scenes in the movie. Because there's no words. It's literally just both of their faces acting and they are incredible. They are incredible. And obviously that scene, super traumatic, super dramatic and traumatic. But I think the way the actors really performed that scene was just like, it's one of my favorite scenes. I love that scene from the movie for the sole fact of just like, it's so simple.  Maybe you should pick another sport.   It is, it literally is. Stars shining bright above you. Marry in the first date, it says you're pretty.  That's why she won the Oscar, you know? Because of that line right there. Coming from the lady who has a couple marriages, I just don't think that's all right. I don't think that's okay. This shot is the ultimate award-winning shot right here. Yeah, that's cinematic. And I feel like we should appreciate it all more. They put all their budget into this scene as they should because it definitely looks like it. It was amazing. It literally gave me chills when I saw it the first time. You can still see the floating head, but it's a little bit better than the all the other scenes. And I love it that they recreated that shot of Tonya Harding so well. It literally looks identical. It looks identical. That's it. That's the shot right there. This is the ultimate scene ever. Ultimate recreation ever. It's so good.  I was the best figure skater in the world at one point in time. Incredible. That's the best scene ever. It is technically a perfect scene. Technically, it's a perfectly executed scene that captures not only like the emotion that the actual video of Tonya Harding when she did the triple axle, but it also was just a stunning scene as well. Margot Robbie captures the essence of Tonya Harding actually in the actual video of Tonya Harding so well. So she captures it so well and then it's just technically a beautiful scene. The cinematic beauty of it all and I love it so much. I mean what kind of freaking person bashes in their friend's knee? Who would do that to a friend? The story telling of this movie is superb. That's why it's one of my favorite movies because... I can't even put it into words because I'm not a film critic. I just think it has such a great balance between drama, almost like this dark comedy, and then also having that biopic also added onto it. I think the performances carry the movie though. As much as I love the writing and I love the screenplay, performances are what do it for you. You know what I mean? These actors did it. Although I think Amy Adams looks more like Tonya Harding, Margot Robbie played the role. I don't think anyone could do it like Margot Robbie. I love Amy Adams though, don't get me wrong. Literally would have her, but this is it. She actually did this. Sorry, this movie is giving me a mix of everything. I love breaking the fourth wall. I love anything that breaks the fourth wall in a good way. In a good way. I love a biopic and I also love kind of like a mockumentary style by using the tapes going off of the tapes that were actually the Tonya Harding tapes or the Tonya tapes. I forget what they're called. It has just such a mix of everything and it's a perfect movie.   I don't know what that had to do with anything. I think I was just trying to make a point that he also wasn't like the American, you know, standard or whatever. Like the societal standard either.   Like you know what it's like to not fit in. I don't know why I just said that. I wish I had a mother like me instead of nice.  I didn't like my mother either. So what?  Okay whiplash. Okay JK Simmons. Am I rushing or dragging? Rushing or dragging? Like it's very much giving JK Simmons vibes. Do you think Allison and JK like hang out because they're like, we play the, we play the, we play the abusive teacher, abusive mothers. You know what I mean?  I mean it's what you all came here folks.   That's when I noticed there was a bird. I didn't know there was a bird the entire time until that she was going to go a bird. I just can't believe how common hitmen are. I don't know. Would you hire a hitman or would you do it yourself? I don't know. Would I hire a hitman?  I don't know. I feel like it's a waste. It's kind of expensive just to injure someone. Obviously I wouldn't.  I just messed up my lipstick. Obviously I wouldn't do any of it but I feel like it's kind of a waste of money if you just hire them to injure them. Would eye skating even be known? Would figure skating even be known if it wasn't for this incident? Really, honestly. I'm just kidding. That's a complete discredit to the actual sport of figure skating and I'm sorry that it came out of my mouth. Once I knew about it and didn't report it and tried to cover it all up I was killed.  Once you knew about it and tried to cover it up and didn't report it like I guess they found me guilty to reach if you think that. But do you think that CBS who was showing the games was going to let this ginormous ratings fucker not happen? Having Tonya Harding removed from skating and like banning her from skating compositions was literally the worst thing they could have done for figure skating publicity ever.  As the figure skating community like you screwed yourself over not keeping Tonya Harding in the game because people would have came back to watch that every single time. You know what I mean? Before it even happens this scene has so much emotion it's literally one of my favorite performances ever. She delivers such rawness in this scene that transcends through the camera and just god damn it I love it so much.  I don't know why I related to it so much. I thought it was such a humane scene. I love scenes like that because it just creates such a connection to the audience and really gives such a human level portrayal on the screen. Why I love this scene and why I love this movie, you know, and I love Margot Robbie's portrayal of it is because it shows a wide variety and the complexity of female emotions in a movie and I love that we see her go from the top of the world to rock bottom and we see such a well-rounded portrayal of female emotion. Personally I love the scene where she's putting on makeup. I think it has many different interpretations for it. I had my own interpretation of it. It showcases a break that a lot of people have and that I have where you're putting on makeup and you're trying to get it together but everything is falling apart.  It's not a grand unique thing. I've heard a lot in movies but it's one of my favorites when it's done with women characters. It's something that I think can be really impactful if done correctly and I think that's done correctly in Etonia. That's why I love it so much and that's why I have so much to say about it and why I think it holds such complexity within it.  People might think I'm trying to make seem less shallow. I don't really know.   I love it. I love it. And I'm so sorry for going on such a long ramble about that but I just love it. All I know is skating. That's all I know. And I am no one if I can't... No, I can't. They shouldn't have done this to her. I'm sorry. She shouldn't have been banned. I'm making a statement. She shouldn't have banned from skating. That's enough. You can't... Please, because... Her sentence sequence was way too harsh, I believe. Just send me to jail and then I can still skate. I've given you my decision. But then also, I don't know if the movie just gave her a great redemption arc that I'm just supporting and I don't know. Maybe Tony Harding did it. I don't know. I just don't believe that they should have banned her for life.  You got fucked, too, by the judge. I'm just saying. I had never seen these clips of Tonya Harding before this movie. So whenever they showed the ending credits with the actual footage of Tonya Harding, I was like, are you kidding me? Like, they really did that. Girl. Cragifer. They just... It was identical. I don't think she should have been banned for life. I'll tell you that. I think her sentence was too rough. That's my opinion after watching the movie and knowing nothing of the true events. So, yeah. Best movie ever. Really got snubbed during Oscar season or I mean, award season. Just the most snubbed movie ever. It's got a great way of telling, you know, a true story or whatever. I think it definitely livens up the genre of a biopic. I think a lot of people will think of biopics as boring, slow, and usually they spent half the time wondering if it's accurate or not. I think I Tonya does an amazing thing, which it brings you out of that doubting mindset. And it just lets you sit and go into the film, which I think is important. If you're doing a biopic, you don't want people to be sitting there wondering, is this true? Like, obviously I'm saying that now in my commentary, but like, when the first time I watched it, I was not thinking that. I was just like, oh my god. Just in love with the film.  Well, I'm not a film critic and I don't know anything.  I don't really care. I'm gonna say what I want. And you can move on. If you like this video, give it a thumbs up and let me know what you thought of this movie or this video in the comment section down below. Make sure you subscribe so you can see more videos from me. Share this video with your friends if you liked it. You guys can also follow me on Instagram and Twitter. Instagram is at teacalllevel and Twitter is at leveltrinn and you can also follow me on Letterbox. My Letterbox is at leveltrinn as well. Thank you for watching. I hope you enjoyed it and I'll see you guys in my next video. Bye.


Alright in this video I'm going to show you how to reset your Facebook password.  So from here, so from here if you forgot your password you're going to click on forgot password. From here you're going to enter your email or mobile number to search for your account, hit search and then you're going to use it whatever verification way, where they send a code to you. So I'm going to click on that, hit continue and then from there you're going to check whatever method it is, minus in text and then I'm going to put in my passcode, there we go, hit continue. Remember this is where you would put in your new password.


Hi everyone, Joe for jasphyscasebrakes.com coming at you with a pack of 2023 Bowman Chrome Baseball. This is going to help fill up picker team 9, 12 teams being given away here, some nice ones up there as well, and 10 extra spots being given away within this pack break. So we only sold 20 spots outright, we're going to give away 10 extra spots, so half of you will get extra spots. So let's roll it, randomize it, 5 and 3, 8 times, top 10 after 8, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and good luck, 8th and final time. We got, there's your half right there, Michael Russell, Zach, Michael, Dennis, Eugene, Kevin, Eugene, Sean, and Zach. So congrats to the top 10 after 8, got some extra spots going your way, let's put little roof top symbols next to your name, so you know you won those spots. Now let's do the pack break itself, all 30 teams are in, there they are, and there's all of your names now. So Ronnie you ended up with the official last spot mojo, last full spot taken, and 3 times, 1 and a 2 for the pack break, 1, 2, 3, got Michael down and Zach, and then 3 times for the teams, 1, 2, and 3. We got brewers down to raise, jeez Kyro, will be my font choice. Here's the first half of the list right there, second half of the list right over here, no trade windows, and let's just print, alphabetize first, print and rip. Alright now could there be surprises in here, yes, let's see what it's going to be, got Patrick Rayleigh, got Lentigua, Shimmer, alright nothing too crazy there, but the whole point of this is who's going to win teams. So let's flip back to the main page right here, let's gather all the teams, these are the teams that we're going to randomize to you, let's put that right over there, and we're just randomizing your names, not the teams, alright so now let's gather all of your names again, 1 through 3 and everyone in between, you dice new list, and let's roll it and randomize that list, 3 and a 2, 5 times, so top 12 after 5 we'll get teams in the next break, just coming up to the next video, top 12 after 5, good luck everybody 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5th and final time, so from 13 on down, sad time, sorry Sean very close but no cigar this time, 13 through 30, thank you wasn't that a movie, 13 going on 30 maybe with Jennifer Garner, top 12 you get teams in the next bone chrome hobby break, Eugene you've got a team, Nancy, Zach, Eugene, Zach, Eugene, Dennis, Zach, Dennis, Michael, Eugene and Sean Maddock, so congrats to the top 12 after 5, let's copy those names and here are the teams, alright you get, there you go so Sean with the twins, Eugene with the Mets, Michael with the Brewers, Dennis with the Rays, Zach with the Astros, Dennis with the Angels, Eugene with the Cardinals, Zach with the Rockies, Eugene with the Blue Jays, Zach with the White Sox, Nancy with the Royals and Eugene with the Nationals, that break coming up in the next video, we'll see you for that, Jasper'scasebreaks.com, bye bye.


Okay. I'm going to show you this video. It's by a guy named Destiny. He plays video games online and makes a lot of money playing video games online. And you know, this video was watched, I don't know, I can tell you in a minute. Once I find the video, I'll tell you exactly how many times it was watched. And it was watched 150,000 times. And he's got, you know, he's got 262,000 followers. And this is the guy. And he's talking here about violence against conservatives. So here's his argument. Oops, let me put on headphones because I need to hear it too. What is the moral argument? Sure. So the moral argument is that conservatives in the United States are already enacting violence on large groups of people and that for them to respond with violence and kind is something that most people would see as a defensive measure. So the idea is conservatives vote for certain policies that he construes as violence. And as a consequence, if somebody attacks conservatives, it is an act of self-defense and they deserve it because they voted for people who enact policies that are inherently violent. Think that through for a second. So somebody votes for politician. The politician then infringes on somebody's rights. It's okay then to attack the person who voted for that politician because he voted for the infringement of rights. So he's saying it's just self-defense. So for instance, let's say that you were one of the 800,000 DACA people that were facing deportation potentially under conservative rule. That would be a violent action by the government trying to remove you from where you live. Or let's say that you're somebody that's going to lose the health insurance because of the repeal of the mandate for healthcare. That might be something that you look at a conservative like, what the fuck, you're literally voting me to die. I think that these are people or people that support these groups of people could have like justifiable qualms or justifiable retaliations against people that are in favor of these types of policies in the U.S. So put aside the specifics, right? Put aside the specific arguments. Here it's DACA, you know, which I'm sympathetic to the people in DACA and its health insurance, which obviously, you know, if the government is taking away my health insurance, or in other words, not taking away your health insurance, if the government is not providing me with free, quote, healthcare, then it's violating my rights and I have a right to be violent against those people who voted to enact those things. I mean, think about what kind of world that leads to. The government takes my money every month. It literally steals my money every month. Is that a justification for me to attack violently? Everybody who voted Democratic or Republican because they all afford taxes. It's clearly stealing. So can I be violent against people who are supporting legitimization of theft? Some government does some injustice towards you. Does that justify you taking violent action against the government? Now, at some point it does, right? Because at some point it's violating your right to such an extent that you have to. How do we differentiate those? And what is the action that constitutes? That constitutes, you know, what is the action for the government that constitutes such a threat that it's legitimate for you to take up violence and against whom then? Are you being violent? So imagine if any of us could decide like he is advocating.  Therefore, it's legitimate for me to use violence against them and the people who voted for them. What kind of world would we live in? What is the name of the kind of society that that leads to? Well, that leads to a society that is anarchist. Everybody has a gun. Everybody's shooting everybody based on their political opinion. It's complete subjectivism. What's the standard by which we define one as a real violation of individual rights? And that everybody gets to pick and choose when his rights are being violated. What's the standard by which? What standard did they provide for what constitutes a violation of rights and what is not? They don't. It's just whatever they. Their particular political leaning suggests whether on the far right or on the far left. Now, the far left has the audacity to try to justify this intellectually. Here's a Clemson University intellectually in academia.  He's the one who used the hashtag often punch Nazis, right? Or in more recent time, the same professor has used a hashtag ACAB, which is all cops are bastards and bone it down. Professor at a university arguing that boning it down is legitimate. Another professor, Oberlin College, right? He writes, protests even when there is violence. Can make it a more salient issue and provide greater pressure on elected officials and candidates. So this is a pragmatic view, right? When we see the destruction of buildings, when we see violence, either by police or by protesters themselves, we actually see greater response by elected officials. So some pragmatic response.   And since the cause is a good cause, then it's justified. Of course, they wouldn't defend it if the cause was not a, quote, good cause. Or a Texas A&M associate professor of philosophy.  Or a Dometh University professor who has written extensively defending Antifa. Why? Again, because their cause is a good cause. They're just trying to act in self-defense against fascists. The name, it says anti-fascists. And again, I see the same thing on the right. You remember when that caravan of immigrants was coming in from Central America?  Just shoot them all. And indeed, many people called it an invasion. Which means a war. Which means shoot them. Much of the motivation behind the Pittsburgh synagogue motor and the El Paso motors were motivated by hatred of immigrants as invaders. It was a good cause. Now, these things don't get academic defenses. The defense on hidden places on the web. But I'm sure there are people out there defending it. So when is violence justified in a civilized country? And when does the country become so uncivilized that, you know, violence is justified because it's no longer civilized? So first, we still consider America a free country. If we still consider the country we live in free, then violence cannot be justified. You don't like the policies. Then you vote against them. You speak against them. You argue against them. Violence is only a last resort when reason in a civilized place. When either your life is at stake, your life of property directly at stake by a thug who's breaking the law, or if it's the government, violence is only justified when you can no longer speak your mind. Or we can no longer vote the bastards out. As long as we're voting, we don't have a one party system. As long as we have free speech, which is violence cannot be justified because once you accept it, then it becomes anarchy. You abandoned, you abandoned any semblance of objectivity about what defines what violating rights and what is not. I mean, that's at the end of the day the job of government, even though it defaults on that responsibility. The only context in which violence against government officials, people who vote in a particular way, the only context in which that is justified is revolution. And it certainly is justified when the violations of rights are such that one has no other recourse but to raise arms and go against the government. You know, people, this guy, destiny in his, in his video, he talks about the fact that, look, the country was founded on political violence. Yes, it was founded in revolution. And if you're calling for the revolution, then have the balls to call for a revolution and organize one and set one out. But short of revolution, there is no justification, no justification for politically motivated violence. And to the extent that people engage in it, they should be condemned, they should be prosecuted, they should have to suffer, you know, their fate, the rule of law should be fully enforced. They don't get a free pass because they're fighting for some cause. They don't get a free pass because somehow, you know, the, the cause that they're fighting for is justifies the violence. It doesn't. Again, unless the cause that you're fighting for is true, is freedom, unless the cause you're fighting for is individual rights and you are in an insurrection, you are in literally a revolution. And then it's war. And you have to recognize it's war and don't be surprised when they start lobbing bombs at you. So you can't escape the consequences either way of embracing violence. Either way, you are going to have the state come after you.  And there are consequences to that. But we live in a culture today where so many people now are convinced of the righteousness of their cause and convinced that the only way they can fight for their cause is by the use of violence. We live in a culture where reason is a means of persuasion. Is irrelevant because both far left and far right have given up on reason. If they have given up means they advocated for the left and some on the right in the past have advocated for reason. But now the far left and far right have given up completely on reason. Reason is not a tool. Reason is not a means. That's why they're against free speech. It's why they don't want to hear certain points of view on campus, why they don't want to see certain points of view on Twitter or on Facebook or on any way and published any way. If you give up on free speech, if you give up on reason, if you give up on argumentation, if you give up on your ability to persuade, if you give up on their ability to convince the other side with facts and evidence and data and arguments, and you're convinced that your cause is just and moral and good, then what are you left with? You're left with violence. When you give up on reason, all you have is force. And unfortunately we're seeing, we're seeing an intellectual landscape today, which has given up and is giving up on reason. And when you give up on reason, you got feelings. And when you have feelings, your emotions drive you. And when your emotions drive you, you're far more susceptible to violence. And we're seeing that in the streets of America right now. These are children. These are children of an educational system that has not equipped them to think, has not equipped them with reason, has not equipped them to be rational, has abandoned them to their emotions and then encouraged them, encouraged them to cultivate those emotions, to celebrate those emotions. God forbid you should control it. And to some extent today, as a consequence of this, we're in a brink of a kind of a civil war. We have people on the right who are yelling and screaming emotionally, without argument. And you've got people on the left yelling and screaming emotionally without argument. And you've got a president and an opposition party that are basically threatening and suggesting that they will not recognize an election. You've got supposedly this meeting of leftist activists getting together, talking about demonstrations and riots and occupying space after the election, immediately after the election, unless Biden wins in a landslide. I'm sure there are groups on the right having similar debates and similar discussions about how to rally around Trump. If he seems to be losing by a small margin. We are on the brink of potential real violence on a significant scale in American streets. Something I think many others would have thought unthinkable even a year ago. I know people who thought Obama would never leave the White House. So they were already ready back then. But just unthinkable that in America, we would like in, I guess like in, well, not exactly like, but like in Belarus, we would, there's even a possibility that the president or the challenger would not recognize the outcome of an election and would actually send their people out into the streets to fight over this. Michael asked me, have you seen Clockwood Orange? If you have, I'll ask a $300 question. That's how you get my attention. Yes, I have seen a Clockwood Orange. So I'm looking forward to the 300 question. I don't know. We live in scary times. Politically, you know, in so many ways unthinkably scary times. And don't get caught up in this. Don't get caught up in the justification for violence. Now, you know, there might come a time where we will have to declare a revolution. But let's hope it's not soon because if we did, we would lose big time. So it'd be better if we, you know, if we wait until we have kind of the strength and the numbers to have a shot at winning it. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist brought. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show.  But at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. If you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at your own book show. Dot com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for all for the work, for the value. Hopefully you're receiving from this.  You'll know what shows are on when they're on. You'll get notified. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please.


Hey, what's going on guys paint your prime here once again with another Transformers siege review and the bot We're looking at in this video review is a brand new figure and brand new character siege battle master Smashdown this guy looks really cool. He's a minotaur looking robot that transforms into a hammer And as far as I know, this is a brand new character. I don't recall ever They're being a smash down in Transformers fiction. Of course, if I'm wrong you guys will let me know in the comments So let's go ahead and take a look at the packaging. You got some fantastic siege artwork showing smash down in robot mode Smashing down on the ground Damn, I'm a potent didn't know it on the back smash down hammer mode and Springer wielding the hammer mode and that's pretty much it for the packaging So let's go ahead and get this guy ripped open and take a look at him and see if he makes an impact in my collection and welcome to Patriot Prime reviews Now after you get smashed down free from his packaging, you'll notice that he comes with two accessories This really cool blast effect where it looks like it's it's an impact effect. So that's pretty cool and This handle this is what's used for him to be wielded in hammer mode I was really hoping that this could be used at some kind of staff weapon or gun and It it just can't it will not fit into his hand What you're supposed to do is he's got this section right here on the back that this pegs right into You don't like so There's a little tab make sure that's facing up and it'll slot right in and Click into place. So He's got that going on for him in the back. So is the tail is it a I Don't know it just that looks goofy But you don't really see it from the front and it gives him a little bit of stabilization now robot mode It's different. Like I said, he's a minotaur looking robot fairly decent face sculpt you can make out the Bull details there nice painted blue eyes and blue accents on the horns Little bit of silver details on the arms and legs as far as articulation Arms are on a ball joint. They can go all the way around up and down Same with the legs up down all around even do the splits that everybody likes demonstrating for some reason There is no elbows. There is no knees. He's he's got g1 mobility Now to transform smash down into his alt mode It's pretty simple.  Oh, there's the fireworks going off. Happy 4th of July Now what you're gonna do is bend him at the waist and Then take the legs and rotate these around so these hollow bits will connect to these hollow bits and They'll snap together so waist snaps Get those lined up just right Squeeze them together and there we have smashed down in hammer mode and What else can I say that's That's a hammer All right, now you can take the blast effect and it's got a thick section right here so you can put that on either end so it's got that Wham look to it. So that's pretty cool. Another thing I discovered is you can display him By sticking him in the other end of the blast effect If you want to have him looking like that on your shelf So there's an option for you, but that's pretty much all there is for me to say about smash downs Hammer mode now. Here's an example of smash down in action. We have iron hide using him to smash the face of Starscream in and As I stated earlier, you can use that blast effect to indicate an impact So you have Starscream getting some revenge on iron hide Siege battle master smash down is a pretty cool figure I mean he is so unique not only with his Minotaur robot mode, but he turns into a massive war hammer to be wielded by larger figures Now I'm not a big fan of the giant butt plug hanging off his back But you can't pop that right out set it to the side so you can display him on your shelf as such So there you go guys. There is war for Cybertron siege battle master smash down So there's a war for Cybertron siege battle master smash down belonging your collection Absolutely. This is a cool figure. I love the whole Minotaur look to him and the the war hammer. I mean it's very Medieval I mean I'm starting to notice that the Autobot battle masters are all melee weapons while the Decepticons are blasters So yeah, he's really cool. You see him pick him up not to mention You can't go wrong with new blast effects and guys. I want to thank you for stopping by and checking out my channel Don't forget to like and don't forget to subscribe. I just hit 1700 subscribers, so thank you guys very much. I am so excited for that I mean, this is my channel has grown so much beyond what I thought it was going to but I'm not done yet My goal is to hit 2000 subscribers by the end of October for TF con so hashtag 2000 by TF con don't forget to check out the Patriot Prime merch store I've got these new who are t-shirts Patriot Prime here on the front with a Patriot Prime logo on the back I have a link in the description below Also, check out my video series the sit rep It's where I sit down and interview other transformer collector youtubers and we have a blast just talking about Plastic robots. I mean, it's a hoot. Some of those sit reps are hilarious guys If you're able I have a donate button also in the description of the video If you'd like to donate to my PayPal account for like tips of the channel totally up to you guys once again I appreciate you watching. This is Patriot Prime signing out who I


I have selected an urgent question, which will be taken as the first item of business today, but, as a result, the decision time will be postponed until 5.15. I believe that all members have been notified by email. We turn to the urgent question, Liam McArthur. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the merger of the British Transport Police in Scotland is to be delayed. We are committed to delivering the benefits of a single command structure to provide integrated infrastructure policing in Scotland. A safe and secure transition to the full integration of British Transport Police in Scotland and Police Scotland is our aim and a clear focus on public safety is paramount. The joint programme board set up to oversee that integration has been advised by Police Scotland and the BTPPA that operational aspects of the integration will not be ready for April 2019 as planned. Ministers have therefore agreed that a replanning exercise should take place in the coming months to ensure that all aspects have a clear and realistic delivery plan in place. As part of that, we will ensure that we take advantage of the opportunity to enhance communications with staff, officers and rail operators about the merger. The case that SNP ministers forced through the merger of the British Transport Police and Police Scotland despite serious concerns and overwhelming opposition from the BTPP officers and staff, and despite clear warnings from HMICS about a lack of detailed business case on the benefits, disadvantages and costs involved, DCC Livingston has now warned that those unresolved issues mean that integration cannot be achieved on the Scottish Government's terms, quote, without compromising public safety. Given those concerns, will the cabinet secretary now accept that the joint board has been handed a poison chalice and that this politically driven merger should not go ahead until a proper business case has been published, scrutinised and approved by this Parliament? Let me deal with a couple of factual issues in the first place. The idea that we forced through this proposal is somewhat bizarre, given that we are a minority government and had to require the support of other parties in this chamber. I recall that stage 1, the Liberal Democrats supported the proposal and changed their position through the process. It is hardly forcing something through Parliament, Presiding Officer. In relation to the HMICS report that the member made reference to as well, I also pointed out to him that it was a report relating to matters back at the beginning of 2017, actually February-March 2017, prior to introducing many of the details that we then produced for Parliament when it was considering the legislation going forward. Since then, there has been a significant amount of work taken forward. It is also important to make sure that the comments that were made by Deputy Chief Constable Ian Livingston are not taken out of context. Let me quote him directly, Presiding Officer, because I think that the way in which Mr MacArthur has sought to try and interpret them is somewhat misleading. He stated, and I quote, over the last few months, that we have been assessing the feasibility of delivering integration by April 2019. It has become clear to Police Scotland that there are unresolved issues, which means that effective operational integration cannot be achieved by the date without compromising public safety. Independent consultants have endorsed our position on the matter. The issue that DCC Livingston is highlighting is that the assessment that has been made by Police Scotland on its state of preparedness in this matter does not allow them to be able to deliver it by April 2019. That is why they brought forward the proposal to the joint programme board on Tuesday of this week, setting out that they should undertake a re-planning exercise in order to look at setting a new integration date. That is exactly what the joint programme board agreed at the request of Police Scotland and the British Transport Police Authority. The Government was repeatedly told that its deadline was unrealistic, and its proposals are unrealistic. DCC Livingston has now confirmed that, and that is somehow taking his comments out of context. The Scottish Centre for Crime and Research has published a report today into the impact of integration on BTU officers and staff in Scotland. The survey found that 83 per cent were unsupportive or very unsupportive of the merger, leading to 64 per cent having given serious consideration to leaving policing because of the merger. One responder, with over 30 years' experience in the BTP, said that the service was being, quote, destroyed for political reasons, adding that it is this political motivation that has angered officers most. Another said that the merger was, quote, more transformation at an already turbulent time within Police Scotland's short history. Given the damning indictment of the Scottish Government's plans, does the cabinet secretary really believe that it is sensible to proceed with a merger that commands the confidence of a mere 7 per cent of BTP officers and staff? Does he now regret refusing to consult on any other options that are put forward for delivering the Smith commission recommendations? Let me pick up an issue about the date that was set. The date that was set for the integration being taken forward was one that was agreed with other parties. It was not one that was imposed by the Scottish Government, so the member is factual incorrect on that matter yet again. I can also highlight the issue about the benefits that will come from the integration of British Transport Police into Police Scotland as creating that single command structure, opening up aspects to specialist resources within Police Scotland that we do not have within BTP, within Scotland as well, making sure that we have an infrastructure arrangement here in Scotland for policing of it that protects it from the plans that the UK Government does not have, which is to abolish British Transport Police and integrate it with civil nuclear and also with MOD policing and to create national infrastructure policing that would leave us in a position that would be even more vulnerable and potentially only leaving Scotland with any form of railway policing on its own. What the member seems to often ignore is that, when the Smith commission and the subsequent legislation to implement the powers that were to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament that was taken forward, it places a requirement on the Scottish Government or on the Parliament to be responsible for railway policing. We therefore need to put a structure in place in order to achieve that. The member makes reference to previous alternative plans. The reality is that all of the alternative plans leave us in a situation that creates a confused picture where there is a clear lack of direction around who is exactly responsible for railway policing in Scotland, because a list of responsibility would still be with the transport secretary in London. The BTPA, which is appointed by the transport secretary, would still be responsible for doing that, despite the fact that I have no doubt that we would have Mr MacArthur and others coming forward here demanding that the Scottish ministers are responsible for the area of policing, which ultimately is the responsibility of ministers in London when anything went wrong. By providing a clear line of accountability, which is what we deliver through having integration into Police Scotland, alongside providing open up aspects to the specialist skills that we have within Police Scotland as well, we will help to support us in delivering first-class railway policing in Scotland under a single command structure and also making sure that we can deploy specialist assets to support railway policing as and when it is necessary other than what we have at the present moment when it is requested through special arrangements. If we can get very short questions and short answers, we might get through some of them. The cabinet secretary would accept that the public do not understand that we can have one police force for a railway platform and a separate police force for a road a few yards away. It is not joined up. Can the cabinet secretary reassure me and the public that he is committed to joining those forces together? I have got four train stations within my constituency. The reality is that when an incident occurs within one of the train station environments that are thereabouts, it is a local police Scotland to respond to those matters. If there is a requirement for some sort of specialist input from BTP, then that request is then made just in the same way in which the local commander would put in specialist requests. If there is a missing person, it needs air support for searching for someone. It will request additional support. The reality is that, for many people on a day-to-day basis, when it comes to having to police matters around railway stations or the environments of railway stations, it is police Scotland officers who deliver that. We continue to be committed to taking forward the legislative agreement by this Parliament to have an integrated single command structure for railway policing in Scotland, with the BTP being integrated into Police Scotland. For the vast majority of the travelling public, the reality is that they will want effective policing to be delivered no matter whether on a road, railway or anywhere else, and that is exactly what we intend to deliver with integrated structure. The SNP did not listen to the Scottish Conservatives when we said that this was unsafe, unnecessary and unwanted by virtually everyone connected with Scotland's railways. Now they have been forced into an embarrassing, humiliating U-turn, having told this chamber only four weeks ago that a delay would be, and I quote, preposterous. The cabinet secretary's claim that two years was a luxury has been totally discredited. Given that we now know that eight in 10 BTP officers and staff oppose the merger outright, will they listen to them and consider calling the whole thing off? We will create a national infrastructure police force, bringing together the civil nuclear constabulary, the Minister of Defence and British Transport Police to improve the protection of critical infrastructure such as nuclear sites, railways and the strategic road network. Those are the words from the Scottish Conservative Party's manifesto last year and the UK Conservative Party manifesto last year. The very hypocrisy of Mr Kerr to come to this chamber and try to kid on that he does not intend to abolish British Transport Police does him no favours and yet again just shows the depth of his amateur politics on show in this chamber. When he makes reference to who I said that two years was a luxury, he is yet again wrong in that matter. It was Police Scotland and it was ACC, Bernie Higgins who said that, yet again an example of the amateur nature of Mr Kerr's politics when it comes to these issues. As we have made very clear and as it is very clear that it is not within the ability of Mr Kerr to understand, it is that we want to make sure that we deliver the most effective infrastructure policing here in Scotland, and that is through a single command structure. As he set out in his manifesto just last year, here in Scotland and for the rest of the UK. He is a robust exchange. The robust exchange is let's not make them personal. Daniel Johnson, please. Liam McArthur has already made reference to the research published day by the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, which had responses from two-thirds of serving PTP officers. It stated that there was a deep strain of skepticism, cynicism and opposition towards the integration of the British Transport Police into Police Scotland. Will the minister therefore use this pause to listen to those voices of front-line officers and halt this merger? If not, what does he say to those officers about why he is ignoring their professional front-line opinion? As we have said, we remain committed to the integration of PTP into Police Scotland as was agreed by the Parliament. What we have under the replaning exercise that is now being taken forward by the joint programme board is an opportunity to look at some of the issues that still need to be resolved. As I said in my opening comments to the question that was asked by Mr McArthur, as part of that it will allow us to take advantage of the additional time to enhance our communication with staff, officers and rail operators around the benefits of integration and the merger. That is exactly what we will take the opportunity to do to address some of the issues that members who are within PTP presently have around integration plans. John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I support the pragmatic decision of the Cabinet Secretary. You are constantly referred to integration, cabinet secretary, and IT and the integration of the existing forces that make up Police Scotland has been a challenge. Police Scotland leads in counter-terrorism Scotland. There is no suggestion to me other than that that would continue and that plans are in place to deal with things. However, is there any hitherto unknown factors that would impact an operational efficiency in the future that have led to that decision? The integration around IT stuff is a key part of making sure that there is a smooth transition to the integration of BTP with Police Scotland. That is one of the issues that Police Scotland is giving consideration to. The member is right when it comes to issues relating to counter-terrorism. Police Scotland has a lead in this matter. I have made the point in this chamber before when we went to critical it was Police Scotland to have the lead on those issues. BTPs have no armed officers capability within Scotland. They have limited capability around specialist assets. Most of that is provided by Police Scotland, as was the case when we went to critical. A number of the operational issues that have been worked on by Police Scotland in partnership with BTPs is to make sure that they work through all the various scenarios to ensure that there are the required operational arrangements in place within Police Scotland to pick up any of those matters as and when they are necessary. That is one of the issues that Police Scotland has reflected on over the past couple of weeks in looking at the progress that it has made to date, is to identify whether there continues to be operational sensitivities, whether there are risks and what they can do to mitigate that. The re-planning exercise allows them to reflect on that whole process and to input plans in place to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to deliver those issues once integration takes place. Rona Mackay Does the cabinet secretary agree that the decision demonstrates communication between the joint programme board, the Scottish Government and the UK Government is effective and working well? There has been some suggestion as though that this is some sort of dictate that has been taken forward on the part of the Scottish Government with this measure, which is clearly wrong, given the parliamentary support that was required for the legislation. Equally, the planning and integration arrangements are being taken forward on a joint co-operative basis. The Scottish Government, the UK Government, the BTPP, the Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority are all working collectively together to ensure that there is a smooth transition to the integration of rabies policing in Scotland. That will continue to be the case. The very fact that issues of concern were raised by the BTPP and Police Scotland around the timeline from their own reflections on where they were at in being prepared operationally, taking them and escalating them to the joint programme board. The joint programme board responded to them in agreeing that there should be an extension or a period of reflection around re-planning and then looking at having an extension to the integration time. In my view, it makes complete sense. No doubt had that been ignored, members of this chamber would say that it is outrageous that it was not taken into consideration and acted upon. That is exactly what the joint programme board is there to do—to look at the risks, the planning, the progress that has been made and to continue to take action as and when it is necessary to ensure that there is a smooth, safe transition of rabies policing into Police Scotland. That is an important point. If the report out today bears true and two-thirds of BTPP officers leave the service as a result of the merger that they have indicated that they may do, does the cabinet secretary not accept that this would be a huge loss of expertise and experience in this force? Will he publish full analysis of the drawbacks of his proposed merger as he has been asked to by his Majesty's Inspectorate? He may not be aware that the HMICS report was before we published our explanatory notes in the policy memorandum that went with the legislation that sets out the various measures in it. It predated when that information was placed in the Scottish Parliament and the member may want to go away and have a look at that if he is keen to be informed about it in greater detail. I do not underestimate some of the concerns that members within BTPP will have about the significant change that will come about as a result of BTPP being merged into Police Scotland. Some of those were the same concerns that came about at the time when we moved to a single force, with the eight legacy forces concerned about what the impact would be on individuals in addressing those matters. As I have already set out to the member, it will take advantage of the opportunity that we now have with the re-planning process that has been taken forward to double our efforts and to enhance our communication with staff, officers and rail operators. A significant amount of work has been undertaken by the representative bodies in partnership with the Scottish Government to try to provide them with as much information as early as possible about future plans and how it will go on. However, the member will welcome the fact—I have no doubt that he will welcome the fact—that the British Transport Police Federation and others have welcomed the approach that the Scottish Government has taken to this issue and the decision to allow the re-planning exercise to be taken forward, as it will offer an opportunity to its members to get some reassurance on some of those issues. The very concerns that the member seems to be particularly concerned about are the issues that the re-planning process will allow us to refocus on and to address and the Federation for British Transport Police Members has recognised that. I am conscious that there are three more members still wishing to ask questions, but it is time to move on, I am afraid. That concludes the urgent question. We will move to portfolio questions on rural economy and connectivity.


One of the most powerful things that the Holy Spirit does for you. So you have not received the Spirit that makes you fearful slaves. Instead, you received God's Spirit when He adopted you as His own children. Now we call Him Abba Father. That's Romans 8.15. When the voice of the enemy says that God has rejected you, the voice of the Holy Spirit assures you that you belong to Him.