Coffee and the Word

@Ed_Miliband Why aren't we doing nuclear?

After the second fossil fuel crisis in five years, it's clear that clean power is the only route to energy security. The Energy Independence Bill is the next step in our mission: tackling the affordability crisis, creating thousands of jobs and delivering energy security.

@Desert_Hills @The_Kyle_Mann True. The inconsistencies between the prequels and the originals make it difficult to watch them

@coffeeatword @The_Kyle_Mann I will also say george was a revisionist bastard, muddying the story, trying to erase the past. Refusing to release the pure unspecialized starwars onto dvd.

All Star Wars movies ranked: Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back Return of the Jedi

@Kerikal_816 @clivehorsfall @Heccles94 The question remains, do we know any more about them, than he has five homes? Are they rentals? Air BnBs? Holiday homes? Homes that family members live in? Are they all in the UK? We can't judge it as right or wrong simply based on 'he has 5 homes'

@coffeeatword @clivehorsfall @Heccles94 One holiday home is fine (I mean I don't personally get the point of them when hotels exist but whatever). The issue comes from him having 4 non permanent homes. Excluding the holiday house, that's 3.

Nigel Farage has 5 houses. Zack Polanski lives in a house share with 5 other people. The media is trying to tell you Zack is the problem.

@Desert_Hills @The_Kyle_Mann Only if you acknowledge the existence of the prequels and sequels, otherwise it's just Star Wars.

@The_Kyle_Mann Excuse me. That's A New Hope.

@Kerikal_816 @clivehorsfall @Heccles94 Do we know where these houses are located and if he rents them out? If one of them is a holiday home, should we also be annoyed when people own caravan's that could be used to house the homeless?

@clivehorsfall @Heccles94 The issue is that someone can own 5 houses yet there's homeless people. Those 4 houses Farage has could go to homeless families.

@CondorDawg92 @SirEbele This isn't the unanimous position of the early church

@SirEbele This Ebele guy is completely wrong here, but I’m sure he knows more than all of the early church fathers and Christians.

BROTHER: Did you know that Apostle Peter was the first pope and head of the church? EBELE: No, I did not. Peter was one of the foundational apostles; but there was no pope. BROTHER: Ha! It's in your Bible! EBELE: Where? BROTHER: Open to Matthew 16:18 and read it to me EBELE: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." And so? BROTHER: Didn't you just read Jesus Christ say He will build His church on the rock called Peter? He chose him as the first pope. EBELE: No, my brother; the Lord Jesus was not referring to Peter as the Rock upon which the church is built. Peter had just received a revelation of Christ being the Son of God in the preceding 2 verses - Matthew 16:16-17. That's what Jesus was referring to in verse 18. I can show you in another place. Please open to Ephesians 2:19-20 BROTHER: "Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone" And so? EBELE: Did you not see that the stone referred to was Christ Himself, which is what was revealed to Peter in Matthew 16? That was what Jesus was referring to. BROTHER: Noooooo. It is very clear what Jesus said "I say to you that you are Peter. Peter means rock. And on this rock (Peter), I will build my church. Peter was the first head of the church. EBELE: Okay, okay, since you don't want to consider the plain truth I just showed you in Ephesians. Maybe you think Paul who wrote Ephesians was jealous of Peter and didn't want to say he was the head.....let's go back to that Matthew 16 BROTHER: Okay? EBELE: So in Matthew 16:18 Jesus called Peter the rock on which He will build His church, right? BROTHER: Yes! EBELE: Okay scroll down in the same chapter and read verse 23. Matthew 16:23. BROTHER: But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." Okay? EBELE: Who did Jesus call rock in verse 18, making him the first head? BROTHER: Peter! EBELE: And who did Jesus call Satan in verse 23? BROTHER: Hmmm.....Pe.......ter EBELE: So who was the first Satan of the church? BROTHER: Hmmm! Okay? Aaaah! Ehm! I see. Wow! EBELE: May you continue to see. Good night. BROTHER: Thank you, my brother. Good night. -------------------------------- MORAL OF THE DRAMA: Isokuso can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be transferred from one form to another - Peter Obi, 1441AD. May God bless the reader

@alexbakerman He doesn't seem to stick to his promises. What he criticised in opposition he does in government. His rhetoric over Southport was divisive and lacked understanding. He's anti free speech. I could go on....

@RobCecchi @oliverburdick How does that justify the prayers above?

@oliverburdick Holy Spirit and called her "blessed among women" Luke 1:42 "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed" Luke 1:48 The old testiment Word of God, the 10 commandment tablets, was held in the ark of the covenant. Mary is the ark of the new Word of God, Jesus.

All the Catholics in the comment section: “WE DONT PRAY TO MARY, WE ASK HER TO PRAY FOR US!” The prayers in question:

@briankeepsworth It's also a misquote of the passage God calls to Adam 'Where are you?'

Atheist discovers what a rhetorical question is.

@ehannah0 He consistenly violates the standards he set when he was in opposition

Here's Keir Starmer in opposition, arguing that the Conservatives couldn't change Prime Minister without a general election. By his own standards, Labour cannot just change Prime Minister, we need a general election.

@AnxiousHolly @SamtimeNews is the best. By a mile.

Tell me your favourite tech YouTuber 👇

@SarahTaylor_UK @JeremyDBoreing How is she proving that?

@JeremyDBoreing @JeremyDBoreing people are concerned for your SANITY, not your safety, if you go to her studio. At this point, she’s proving daily that sanity should be guarded at all costs.

The video is Prime Candace. Every manipulative rhetorical technique in the books. She makes roughly 236 claims in roughly 30 minutes in what is probably one of the most concise examples of a Gish gallop I have ever seen. A Gish gallop is firing off so many claims in rapid succession your opponent can’t possibly address them all. Even if every claim is wrong, the preponderance of false claims produces the impression of a devastating case. Coupled with Brandolini’s Law, which posits that the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. The whole process is meant to make the accused look crazy for even trying. Candace uses rhetorical sleight of hand to accuse me of accusing her husband of lying on his immigration documents. I might respond that I’ve never made any such claim. But Candace has already suggested I’m working with Laura Loomer to launder the accusation against her. I might respond that I haven’t spoken privately to Laura Loomer in years. But Candace has already moved on to say that I’m coordinating with Ben Shapiro to launder ideas to Laura Loomer. So I might respond that I haven’t spoken to Ben Shapiro in over a year, other than a single text exchange when Charlie died. But Candace has already moved on to calling me a creep. Each of my responses, by the way, will be immediately attacked in its own right. Candace’s audience will insist her accusation is true, even though she has offered no proof, and will likewise demand I provide proof of my counter claim. Asymmetric skepticism and burden shifting. I will not be able to prove that I didn’t make a claim, because one cannot prove a negative. Sure, they won’t be able to show any proof that I did make such a claim, but no burden of proof applies to them. Show us your texts! You must have deleted the texts! You had a stupid haircut as a child! The over 200 accusations scale with your answers. Answering one doesn't drop the total to 235 – it scales it up exponentially, because your answer becomes the source of a new onslaught of charges from Candace and her legion. Pretty soon, not only is the sheer number of accusations condemning, but the sheer number of accusers becomes proof that Candace is winning! Vox populi, vox Dei! Trying to defend yourself against such madness is madness. It’s like trying to nail Jello to a wall. You might think there is one claim I simply have to address: That a Daily Wire employee was arrested for sex crimes involving a minor. But while that accusation is terrible, it has nothing to do with me. As the document Candace posted makes clear, this person was arrested in May of 2025. I left the company in March of 2025. Whatever actions the company did or didn’t take when it learned of the situation, I was not a part of it. To be honest, I’m not actually sure what Candace is accusing me of, other than her deeply twisted statement that “people who support Israel will also protect the Epstein class of pedophiles.” Protect how? What exactly am I being accused of? I would ask Candace to state her allegations clearly and specifically. Otherwise, I choose door number three. By the way, if you employ enough people, you will inevitably employ some terrible ones. Hell, I once employed Candace Owens! Employees are people. If you have enough of them, you have all of the different kinds of people there are. Some will even be criminals, and you will have to fire them, which is what I’m guessing the Daily Wire did in this case. Other than that, I have nothing to say to Candace. She invited me to come on her show to talk about George, but I have nothing to say about George at all. She invited me to talk about this person she says committed this terrible crime, but an hour of “Have you stopped beating your wife,” guilt-by-association slander isn’t my idea of a good time. And I may not be the smartest person in media, but I’m just sophisticated enough to know you can’t have a good-faith conversation with someone who uses rhetoric in such dishonest ways. Candace doesn’t want to talk; she wants to overwhelm me with so many allegations and insinuations, so much projection and presupposition and false consensus signaling that her audience builds a negative narrative about me – whatever negative narrative sticks! I see no reason to engage in that kind of spectacle. Also, my audience is rightly concerned for my safety if I go to Candace’s studio.

@megynkelly It's better to have to save a company than it is your integrity.

Don’t you have a company to save?

@BooBeenie @MasterMaliq The crusades were a defensive war

@MasterMaliq Crusade = Holy War

People love to say “every religion has extremists.” Fine, I agree. Now let’s be honest. Point me to a Christian extremist group today that is openly killing in the name of Jesus, holding the Bible as justification, the same way some Muslim groups loudly claim Islam. Until then, we need stop forcing a comparison that doesn’t match reality.

@ILLegalMuffinz @BenSchettler Not a reasoned response.

What Tyler Robinson did is horrific yet far more honest than what Candace Owen’s is doing. Tyler pointed a gun at Charlie as an enemy, Candace is destroying everything Charlie built and everyone Charlie loved under the guise of “friendship” Candace is a dishonest social assassin.

@Protestia Maybe his mother bought it for him?

Mike Todd of Transformation church preaching at the Gapstanders conference, wearing Sanderlak's Maharam jacket in Rainbow Degrade, which retails for a mere $1395 smackaroos.

@JohnDaltonQuinn @digitalfire84 @EYakoby Thank you. I'd hardly call the prosecution ase falling apart based on that, but at least you gave the reasons!

Dramatic? Who cares if it's dramatic? Is it true? And then you move onto accusing me of stating I had reasons when I clearly addressed that in the previous post. Did you not read it? "Maybe it's falling apart maybe it's not." You don't know. But you're engaged in conversation with strangers about something about what you're totally ignorant. You just admitted it. Why? And don't give me this bullshit about seeming objectivity that you're just waiting to hear evidence. You clearly stated you get the impression that there is no evidence. But what is the basis for that impression? Since you don't know what she claims. OK, here's what she claims. Now you're gonna know. The Tyler Robinson Case (01:19 - 17:22): Candace shares exclusive audio of Tyler Robinson's grandfather expressing support for his grandson and questioning the ballistics evidence related to the rifle found after the death of Charlie Kirk. youtube.com/live/kaWtDuoY_… The Tyler Robinson Case: She discusses findings in the Tyler Robinson filings, arguing that the timeline of his arrest does not add up and that the federal narrative is flawed. She labels the case a "setup" and questions the evidence provided by the prosecution (30:32 - 49:00). youtube.com/live/eLgD5yUVb…

How exactly is the Tyler Robinson case crumbling?

@piersmorgan For a guy who likes to claim he's a Christian and a Ctholic when it's convenient, he looks like he's never been around a person praying in his entire life.

I knew my Russell Brand interview would be an interesting experience when he insisted on saying a prayer for both of us before we started.

@JohnDaltonQuinn @digitalfire84 @EYakoby Wow. Very dramatic. You stated she had reasons, I dont know what reasons she has given. Maybe the trial is falling apart, maybe it isn't. I don't know, I'm waiting to see if all of Candy's hard work has finally paid off.

Just show your ignorance before I give the reasons. you guys are involved in a discussion about which you are clueless. Prove me wrong. The content of your "thinking " right now regarding Candice is: "other people have claimed that she's lying and crazy. I believe these other people, but don't know anything else. I'm just gonna join the bandwagon and attack her even though I have no clue what's going on." Does that describe you? If not, prove me wrong by giving me information that you know about what Candice has said. You're about to get the reasons don't worry. Lol. I'm giving you one chance to describe what you know about what she said. If you fail, I will give you the actual answers. And then you're going to not be able to discuss them because you're clueless.

@JohnDaltonQuinn @digitalfire84 @EYakoby Still haven't given the reasons...

@digitalfire84 @coffeeatword @EYakoby What do you Base that on? How do you know there aren't any? Have you watched her podcast?