Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Michael Stuart Kelly last won the day on October 13

Michael Stuart Kelly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

445 Excellent

1 Follower

About Michael Stuart Kelly

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/09/1952

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Michael Stuart Kelly
  • Articles
    Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues Thoughts on the 12 Steps and Self-Forgiveness Why the Tolerance and Support? Atlantis in the Wilderness A Hunting Story Moral Perfection Like a Lamb to the Slaughter Letter to Madalena ... An Homage to the Value of Valuing Going Home... A Few Thoughts on Family Values Where Principles and Rights Break Down The Stigma of Addiction Book Review on an Addiction Fraud - A Million Little Pieces Charmed on a Raw Night The Nature of Private Written Correspondence – The Sciabarra Smear Online Objectivist Mediocrity The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 2 - Moral Ambivalence The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 3 - Brotherhood of Hate The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 4 - Rand's True Value The Virtue of Silliness (w/Kat)
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

67,129 profile views
  1. Sorry About That Sorry about the outage of OL yesterday. I had a disagreement backstage with the IPB folks. It's resolved now and all is peace and love. Sorry for the inconvenience. Michael
  2. On another thread dealing with Sheppard Smith leaving Fox News, William made a reference to Alexandra Chalupa trying to show how evil Trump was bullying the Ukrainians through Rudy, but how confusing it can all get. I have no idea what that had to so with Sheppard Smith or Fox News, but there it is. Here is the post (with an opening quote chopped off since it is hard to get the copy/paste right quickly and is not all that important): I made some snarky quips, but I know a bit about Chalupa and she would do well to avoid taunting Rudy right now. Her little deal with Adam Schiff and the Deep State isn't going to mean too much for very much longer. Anyway, I was reminded of Lee Stranahan. He has a thing for Alexandra Chalupa and her convicted bomb-making partner, Brett Kimberlin. He has a bit of history with them, also. btw - Lee has two funny bad habits, but his information is rock solid. His first bad habit is he meanders all over the goddam place as he refuses to finish one thought before starting a new one. He's not so bad in this video, but sometimes he gets impossible and your eyes glaze over. The second bad habit is that he has been having a cow over the fact that nobody wants to talk about the malfeasance of Bill Browder in all this. Who is Bill Browder?, you might ask. That topic is too much for this post, but we will get to him. Anyway, the fact that nobody wants to talk about Browder makes Lee wage war with Dan Bongino, Glenn Beck, Fox News and all of its pro-Trump people, and so on. He constantly rants and raves and calls them liars--not because the facts that they present are wrong. It;s because they don't include Bill Browder in their reports on corruption involving the Ukraine and American politicians. He wages more war on them than he does on Browder. But his heart is in the right place and, as I said, his facts are, too. Lee knows more about this entire Ukraine mess than anyone in the news. And that means everyone. Also, I think he is right. If he can get President Trump to say something, anything at all, about Brett Kimberlin, all hell will break loose on the Democrat side. We are talking deep deep doo-doo. Michael EDIT: Here's a relevant Daily Caller interview with Rudy on Oct. 9: This thing is causing the Dems massive heartburn. That's why they are now trying to discredit Rudy through a couple of Ukrainian associates, but it's not "taking" with the public.
  3. Let me guess. A friend of Sheppard Smith? A new talk show host at Fox? Roger Ailes's maid? After all, this is a thread about Smith leaving Fox News... (Quips aside, Lee Stranahan knows who Chalupa is, and he knows who her convicted bomb-making partner Brett Kimberlin is, see here. In fact, I think I'm going to embed this one on the correct thread about the Ukraine mess.) Michael
  4. Peter, Bingo. Besides, when things get nasty, this takes a country apart like nothing else. (I'm talking about the way President Trump does it, not the elitist ruling class presidents preceding him.) If despotic leaders want to act the fool, let them wallow in the messes they make until the people they rule get fed up and kick their sorry asses out. And if they attack the US, then we have the military. Michael
  5. T, Have you ever watched old shows like I Love Lucy? There's a standard plot where a man and a wife are fighting and it's nasty. A third party happens by. Each side tries to recruit him. After analyzing the situation, the third party comes out for one or the other and gives his reasons. There's a little bit of a dust-up, and after that happens, both sides viciously go after him. That's what is happening in these centuries old hostilities far away from American shores, except the setup fight has grown into a divorce. But the US is still the third party the other two hate and do not want meddling. Fact-wise, I don't think anybody knows what is going on over there right now. (Scott Adams calls this stage the fog of war.) The only thing certain in my mind is that we should not be involved in the fighting. Look how refreshing it is when a sitting US president asks the obvious question. Let me repeat that question: "Why are they not asking for a Declaration of War?" Remember the Bush years when that was the main thing libertarians and many people in O-Land kept asking? Man, are there a lot of people making tons of money off of half-assed wars that are not really wars and that can never be won. These same endless unwinnable war for profit people also own the mainstream media. That's why you see the big media outrage against President Trump's decision to say, "Enough!" If people want war, let Congress vote on it. The problem for the war-mongering ruling class is that people at large don't want war, much less endless unwinnable war for the profit of them, the ruling class. Let them send their own kids to fight undeclared wars if they want it so badly. If Congress does not pass a Declaration of War, then the Syrian and Kurdish thing was not our fight--and it is still not our fight. Besides, from what I understand, half the Kurds are friggin' communists. To keep doing this same thing over and over and killing American youth over a bloody con game staged by insider cronies, I mean, how stupid are we? Now we have a President who wants it to stop so that's finally within grasp. So which is it? Red pill or blue pill? Each of us has to decide. Michael
  6. To be blessed with a charmed life. (sigh...) There's just no Objectivist concept for that... Michael
  7. Ellen, That would make the First Dude an immigrant (Michael Farmer is British, but by then he might get American citizenship, though) and the first interracial couple in the White House. That would be one hell of an interesting legacy for President Trump seeing that Candace is a solid Trumper. And it would be extra cool since Michael Farmer is a solid Randian. Michael
  8. Jon, It's odd because I used to have that same reaction. It's like a vibe thing. I wonder how much Roger Ailes was tuned into this vibe business. He's the one who hired and stood behind Sheppard Smith. And if Smith is to be believed, Ailes knew he was gay from the beginning while many at Fox only found out after he came out. Just as Smith repels people like you and me for no other reason than he's something to avoid for no particular reason, there are others who respond to his vibe as attraction. I wonder if Ailes had some kind of intuition about this and managed to keep it in balance with other talent. I know balance was an Ailes value in theatrical terms. For example, in The Five, which is his brainchild, he created it with five archetypes. I can't remember his original nicknames right now, but here is the way I call them. The Leading Man, The Jester, The Leg (the sexy lady), The Mature Lady (or voice of reason) and The Grump. This last is liberal as a kind of fact checker while the other four are conservative. ... Let me interrupt to say FINALLY! As I was writing this, I was also looking for the correct designations. I finally found what I was looking for. Whew! This was driving me crazy. This way, Roger Ailes could appeal to a wide audience while having each character remain true to his or her archetype. Ailes had one hell of an eye for talent. Just think of the stars he hired and mentored over the years. (He didn't have a very good eye for allies, though.) Also, it would have helped if he had kept his hands out of the cookie jar. But I guess with growing power comes the growing compulsion to wed it to appetites on the sly. At least his thing was adult women... The point is, I wonder if his eye for talent included a subliminal sensitivity to resonance between the talent and the audience. Michael
  9. Brant, Some people get boils on their ass and other people miss that experience. Good for you, I say. Michael
  10. Here's another possibility about Sheppard Smith. This is from last March, but it may have grown some legs. EXCLUSIVE AUDIO: Shep Smith Accuser Says Fox News Host Sexually Attacked Him, Kept Going After He Tried To Push Him Off Go to the link and you can hear the audio (it's about three minutes). It's probably too old to have been the reason Smith left Fox, but it's still great a gossip. Michael
  11. More shit on the fake news media going down next week. Here's some of the pre-release hype. Michael
  12. On another thread, William (in gaslighting mode ) asked Peter the following: And in William's post above, he gave a good example to work on to answer that. So here goes. The best starting place is, you have to relate your previous knowledge of dishonest actors to the new messages they bring out. Here's a simple way of saying it. Presume that habitual liars will lie. For example, let's enlarge the highlighted phrase from the tweet of the progressive leftie, Laura Rozen, who William quoted. We should enlarge it to make sure we can read it easily instead of skimming it to get a general impression since the lady writes deceptively. For those who don't know the weeds of the Ukraine mess all that well, Shokin is the prosecutor in the Ukraine who Biden got fired, the one who was investigating the Burisma corruption (and by extension, Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden). By now you have to have seen the video of Joe Biden bragging that he got a prosecutor in the Ukraine fired on pain of the Ukraine not getting a cool billion dollars in loan guarantees. Shokin is that prosecutor. (Firtash is not important for my point about identifying liars and sources. But, to place him in the big picture, he's a Ukrainian oligarch not in favor with the Biden and Deep State side. Also, not important to my point, but worth mentioning is that Shokin has provided a sworn affidavit. Rozen has nothing.) Now notice with whom the credibility of Shokin has eroded: "observers in the U.S. and Ukraine, who already viewed his campaign against Biden as the vendetta of a corrupt bureaucrat." So who are these people, these observers in the U.S. and the Ukraine? Note. You ALWAYS have to ask that kind of question to judge the information you get from the fake news these days. Who are the people being used as sources? In this case, those people are obviously Biden's people at the very minimum. Duh... Man, old Shokin lost so much credibility with them, Quid Quo Pro Joe shook down the entire Ukraine government over him for a cool billion. But the Rozen lady thinks it's just awful that Shokin is losing even more credibility with Biden's people. Actually she doesn't. She merely used this as a pretext to make the language sound like it was everybody who is anybody in the U.S and Ukraine. I think even she believes clarifying who these people are would have sounded retarded. And at another "duh" level of identification for who else she is talking about, she obviously means Shokin's enemies. You know, the ones who (to quote her words once again) "already viewed his campaign against Biden as the vendetta of a corrupt bureaucrat." In other words, the people who were already calling Shokin a corrupt bureaucrat were losing faith in him. Hard-hitting news, huh? Once again, she slanted it to imply both the US and the Ukraine don't think much of him. See? Just pay attention to the sources and who is reporting such sources and you will not get confused. Now that everybody in the reporting is all identified and stuff, we can evaluate things. (The principle is to identify correctly in order to judge correctly.) For example, William thinks this kind of sourcing and reporting are proper habits in top notch journalism. That's probably why he keeps trying to gaslight people with it. As to myself, I think it's all horseshit. I would think it horseshit as journalism even if it expressed views I agreed with. It's easy once you know who the people are that people are talking about. To make sure the question has been answered, here is a paraphrase. How do you know if the opinions you adopt about current affairs are right or wrong when you have to glean the facts informing them from the press? Well, it's easy-peasy. Don't believe habitual liars at face value. And, if the sources are horseshit, don't believe them at face value either. In fact, with both, liars and horseshit, assume as default they are presenting propaganda, not information. Most other reporters and sources are probably reliable. And even then, don't trust them until you have verified them as best you can. Michael
  13. Peter, Thus you see that the problem is not epistemological. Not when the fake news media is concerned. It is propagandistic. btw - In that hidden part of William's post, man do those unnamed dudes "with knowledge of the matter" have a lot to say against President Trump, Giuliani, etc., and for some damn reason, they are all saying the same thing using the same jargon and buzzphrases. Not one of them has a name... Hmmmmm... Michael
  14. For people interested in the dingbat, Tim Pool just did a pretty good wonky discussion of her political electoral situation right now. The big news from this video is where she gets her campaign money. Less than 2% comes from her district. Guess who are the biggest contributors to her campaign? Google Facebook Amazon Think about that for a minute. Isn't that weird? Michael
  15. Did the news about Sheppard Smith leaving Fox just knock the Ukraine telephone call whistleblower brouhaha off the front pages? I mean now that it's out that Joe Biden was in all that shit up to his eyebrows? LOL... I guess it did. Michael