Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Michael Stuart Kelly

  1. TG, When I see that, the following comes into my head. Follow the money... Look at the world. See what is happening in the world. Follow the money. The world is opening up on mandates, passports, vaxes, etc. Now we find one of the principals is losing money. Is that why all this is happening in the world? Nope. It's the contrary. Nobody loses money like that from one day to the next. The people backstage have known about this problem for some time. And those among them who could have helped did not. They all know something the general public does not. For Moderna, what is happening is not good. For humans in general, it is wonderful. I look forward to seeing the whole goddam thing crash around the predator state seeing what they did to the world. Michael
  2. Biden, one year in office, is discussed on the Deep State news network that helped put him in office. Man, what a fall from grace... And, of course, I love it. Michael
  3. There's a whole lot more to that story. Wife Stands Off With Hospital to Keep Her Husband Alive, and Wins Wife Stands Off With Hospital to Keep Her Husband Alive, and Wins WWW.THEEPOCHTIMES.COM A hospital said it would take Anne's husband's ventilator off so she seeks a temporary restraining order and has him transferred. As stated in the previous post, she obviously prevailed and saved his life from an evil hospital system. I once heard that doctors swore an oath, the Hippocratic Oath. I guess that ethic is no longer fashionable, at least in Minnesota. With hospitals like that one, who needs morgues? Michael
  4. What a horror show. A guy in Minnesota got COVID and ended up in a hospital. The hospital people literally starved him and mistreated him because he refused to get vaccinated. When they threatened to remove him from the ventilator, which at that point, would have been fatal, his wife managed to get an injunction, then moved him out of state to a hospital in Texas. Now he is recovering and getting stronger by the day. The Texas doctor said he had never seen a patient starved like that in another hospital before. The Minnesota hospital literally wanted to kill this patient for refusing the vax. This is on The Blaze. 'Scheduled for EXECUTION': Unvaxxed COVID patient flown to Texas after being denied life-saving care in Minnesota 'Scheduled for EXECUTION': Unvaxxed COVID patient flown to Texas after being denied life-saving care in Minnesota - TheBlaze WWW.THEBLAZE.COM 'Now, we're not planning a funeral, we're planning for his release' Note, the headline is a bit misleading. The patient was not scheduled for execution by the government. He was scheduled for execution by the hospital. Here is the video. TheBlaze - Did Hospital Give COVID-19 Patient 'NIGHTMARE' Treatment... WWW.FACEBOOK.COM A doctor in Texas was shocked after he took in Scott Quiner, a COVID-19 patient who had nearly had his ventilator pulled by a Minnesota hospital: "I... I hope that Minnesota hospital gets a big-ass lawsuit aimed at it. Michael
  5. Biden himself is sending indirect messages that 2020 was rigged. And he openly said 2022 might be rigged (if his side loses, of course ). Trump: Biden Admitted 2020 Election May Have Been Fraud Trump: Biden Admitted 2020 Election May Have Been Fraud THEPALMIERIREPORT.COM Trump: Biden Admitted 2020 Election May Have Been Fraud Text: Michael
  6. Salty Droid says he got COVID. And he said how he has been curing it. Although it's humorous, he's serious on both accounts. He actually did get COVID (I've seen some videos where he showed signs of being sick). And he actually has been curing it--according to what he has said several times--with orange juice, beer, water, coffee, and some extra sleep. And he still makes videos. The more recent ones are showing him a lot better. Go figure. Michael
  7. The Dems are trying to rig the midterm elections starting at the federal level. But they had a horrible night for that goal. Dem Voting Bill Blocked In Senate Dem Voting Bill Blocked In Senate NOAHREPORT.COM Democrats could not get their election bill passed through the Senate. The Senate voted 49-51 to block the bill — ... And... BREAKING: Democrats’ Attempt to Nuke the Filibuster FAILS — Senators Manchin and Sinema Join Republicans in 52-48 Vote BREAKING: Democrats' Attempt to Nuke the Filibuster FAILS -- Senators Manchin and Sinema Join Republicans in 52-48 Vote WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM The Democrats attempt to nuke the filibuster has FAILED in a huge blow to Biden and his authoritarian agenda Final vote: 52-48. Senators Manchin and Sinema joined all Republican senators in voting to keep... The Dems can't win unless they cheat. And now they can't cheat in the forms given in these two failed bills. Which means they have to run fair elections for the midterms at least as concerns federal legislative intervention into the electoral processes. And that means the Dems will lose for the most part. This is what winning looks like. Michael
  8. William, No problem. Trump is clean so they will have to manufacture stuff. However, I don't see the same case when they later use this on Joe Biden. In fact, I see China calling and a whole lot of corruption coming to light... Michael
  9. Peter, I do not disagree with this. I can't think of anyone who does. So nobody I know of is going to defend that. Now onto another issue. Have you seen what has been going on in Congress? Not just the House Kangaroo Kommittee on 1/6. Look what Ted Cruz did recently in the Senate to the FBI about 1/6. It was ugly--ugly for the FBI. Ted Cruz asked point blank to the Executive Assistant Director of the FBI, Jill Sanborn, if any federal agents committed a violent crime on 1/6 and she said she couldn't say. He asked that over and over in different ways and she said she didn't know or couldn't say over and over. Take a look at this very short video and tell me this FBI lady was interested in protecting people (other than out-of-line feds and her own ass). TED CRUZ EXPOSES ROGUE FBI INVOLVEMENT AT WASHINGTON CAPITOL ON JANUARY 6 2021 WWW.BITCHUTE.COM 1. https://www.bitchute.com/video/JlsR1Rdlk2MP/ 2. https://newtube.app/user/RenaudBe/CqcBVSI 3. https://ugetube.com/watch/I3oOTkXaPnkTpsr With Ted Cruz... Watch it and see if you think this is the way the FBI is supposed to act. The truth is, that's not good for an agency sworn to protect people. Also, you have mentioned the Capitol Police several times. Are you aware that President Trump requested them for the rally and they were not deployed? Word is Pelosi issued a demand to not deploy them and the Capitol Police command complied with her demand. Also, only a few Capitol Police were there at the Capitol during the breach, not the full force. (There is a source for this I believe you will find OK later in this post.) So how are police supposed to protect anyone if their command refuses to allow them to be present? All of this, and a ton load more, is on record and available to the public. But you have to look at it to see it. CNN will not show it to you. So maybe you could try official records if you don't like the idea of alt media. But these are facts--and there are a whole lot of them. They will not go away with media spin. I know you and another are conflicting over this stuff and it has turned into something that is not discussion. I'm not part of that. All I'm asking for you to do is look at official stuff that cannot be spun. One can imagine and spin why the Assistant Director of the FBI claimed she didn't know what she obviously did (like information on the FBI's own most wanted list), or claimed that she could not provide information that was public knowledge and obviously not classified, but one cannot spin the fact that she said she didn't know and couldn't say when it came right out of her mouth in Congress and it's on video for the whole world to see. One cannot spin the fact that the Capitol Police, except for a few, were not protecting the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Speaking of the Capitol Police, just to give you a taste of what is out there, here is a news article from last January from NBC, which you seem to trust. The spin in the article can make one dizzy, but further down in the article, in the CYA part, it says the following without qualifications (direct quote--there is some spin which I did not quote, but there are no qualifications): Ashli was the only fatality due to violence that day. There were some other deaths due to non-event causes, but only one murder. I don't want to be combative, but you claimed something that is not true: I realize this is an insinuation, but nobody killed any lawmen or bodyguards. Nor did they even try. You should revisit where you got that information and check it against more credible sources (like official records). Hell, even the mainstream fake news press, even though it is all over the place, often sets this stuff straight. Such killing and attempted murder simply never happened. Zero. You don't even have to go far to check. Try the Wikipedia article on the event (see here). I don't like Wikipedia anymore, but I doubt this particular information is false. It's hard as hell to falsify coroner reports for a famous event. 5 people died at the event. Ashli Elizabeth Babbitt was the only homicide. She was shot dead by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Leroy Byrd. And the other 4? Brian Sicknick, died from a stroke. Rosanne Boyland, 34, died of an amphetamine overdose (she was not trampled as given by the fake news media). Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Philips both died from heart attacks. These are all according to coroner reports. Also, later, there were 4 law enforcement suicides attributed as fallout to the event: Capitol Police Officer Howard Charles Liebengood, (three days after the event), D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Jeffrey Smith (January 15), Metropolitan Police Officer Kyle Hendrik DeFreytag (July 10), and Metropolitan Police Officer Gunther Paul Hashida (July 29). That's it. Four normal deaths, four law enforcement suicides, and one homicide. And who committed the murder, prey tell? A Capitol Police cop. To repeat, the only one killed, the only homicide, was an innocent unarmed Trump supporter who was trying to get the false flag goons to stop destroying the windows and doors of the Capitol in order to breach the building, but then felt she herself was in danger from them, the goons, not from the police. In fact, Ashli did not run from the police. She ran toward them for protection and one of them shot her dead. We can have different opinions and all is fair. But we cannot have different facts. A is A. A fact is what it is. It cannot be what it is and something else at the same time. Michael
  10. No sooner had I written this, then the following happened: Jexit Created After Democrat Party Abandoned Jews Jexit Created After Democrat Party Abandoned Jews RUMBLE.COM Jexit Created After Democrat Party Abandoned Jews Jexit is a movement for Jews to leave the Democratic Party. And it's growing. In the video, they also talked about the obfuscation of preaching against Israel and saying this has nothing to do with Jew hatred. For those who think this is conflating libertarianism-like sentiments with bigotry, notice how often those who preach this exact frame end up denying the Holocaust. And who on earth after that disaster and the devastation it wrought would deny the Holocaust except a Jew hater? The Jexit people talked about a Florida school principle who was openly a Holocaust denier. This is already ugly. Leave this alone and it will grow into something horrific. Michael
  11. Here is Salty weighing in on the Ashli Babbitt story. He even goes so far as to say she went through the window to get away from the people around her--the ones she had been admonishing to stop the vandalism--since she could not go back. What's more, that is not only plausible, it makes sense. ASHLI BABBITT TRIED TO STOP ANTIFA FALSE FLAG ON JAN 6TH Ashli Babbitt Tried To Stop Antifa False Flag On Jan 6th WWW.BITCHUTE.COM article - https://www.zerohedge.com/political/stop-no-dont-babbitt-tried-stop-attack-capitol-speakers-lobby-video-analysis-suggests Website: https://saltmustflow.com OTHER PLATFORMS: Odysee:... Also, Salty speculates that the cop who shot her did so on orders. Not specifically to shoot Ashli per se, but shoot a Trump supporter. The reason? This idiot had left his loaded gun in a public bathroom before, yet instead of getting fired, he got promoted. Salty speculates that he was taken to an isolated room and told all would be taken care of, but sometime in the future, they would need a favor from him. And that favor came due on January 6, 2021--go out and cause some mayhem. Shoot a Trump supporter or something... That sounds extremely plausible to me, especially seeing how the cop got off without any investigation. One thing is for sure, and I agree with Salty 100% on it. The narrative is collapsing big time. This threatens to be a scandal far, far greater than Watergate ever was. Michael
  12. Ain't this a bitch? The one person, Ashli Babbitt, shot dead in cold blood by a cop on January 6, 2021, was actually trying to stop the violent damage to the building. "Stop! No! Don't!": Babbitt Tried to Stop Attack on Capitol Speaker’s Lobby, Video Analysis Suggests "Stop! No! Don't!": Babbitt Tried to Stop Attack on Capitol Speaker’s Lobby, Video Analysis Suggests WWW.ZEROHEDGE.COM Video shows female Trump supporter's desperate pleas to prevent rioters from breaking windows... Ashli was set up, pure and simple. And the cop who shot her was a coward with a gun. President Trump, in his rally over the weekend, said he will get to the bottom of it. And he mentioned Ashli by name. Michael
  13. Peter, He's not a consistent determinist, that's for sure. But, frankly, I'm loathe to go into it. I weary when the argument starts becoming who is the One True [fill in the blank] and one slaps a lot of "isms" and "ists" on things. Or when one is a hard this and soft that. (Why on earth would a determinist need a metaphor to characterize himself? Does Hard Determinism have a physical property of being difficult to penetrate and solid? This comment may be too in the weeds, though, for the real humor to shine through. Here's a hint. There's a book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnsen called Metaphors We Live By that goes into all this. Lakoff is an asshole, but this book is good.) If I were to argue about his Hard Determinism (notice the capital H and capital D), I would not start with whether volition is axiomatic--where he is entrenched and in fighting mode. I would start with how on earth he arrives at axioms in the first place. From his usage in what you posted, an axiom is simply another form of faith. Then he goes on to the conflicts, which become what are the True Axioms, much like what is the One True God. As an example, notice that he says: "I accept the 3 primary axioms of Objectivism as long as Volition is left out of Consciousness." That's a statement of faith (acceptance)--a religious statement at that with capitalized deities (Objectivism, Volition, Consciousness)--no matter what else one calls it. And in arguments like that, words will fly until the guns and swords come out. That part never changes. Dennis used to post here on OL and he tangled with a college kid named SoAMadDeathWish. I presume she was a college kid because she was woke before woke was a thing, as progressive as all get out, and used a female doll icon. I call her "she" since that is how she presented herself, but I have no way of knowing for sure the gender of that troll. I eventually had to ban her for gaming the forum (technical spam-like stuff), but she was feisty when she was active. She ended up running Dennis off of OL by calling him a "crank." I know this for sure since I communicated with him offline about it. One other comment on what you posted. It's a bit silly, but something in my brain wonders about the goings-on in the minds of people who ignore things like the following. Dennis wrote: Now when I was young, very young, I learned that periods (.) were for statements and questions marks (?) were for questions. However, Dennis uses a statement as his question and a question as his answer, which should be a statement. It makes me wonder, if a person does that with elementary grammar (punctuation) without noticing, does the person do that kind of switcheroo with other basic rules he learned? Like, say, with axioms? So rather than "Hard Determinist," in my own mind, I find the term "Creative Determinist" better. Except to be "creative," one has to have volition... Ah me... What a mess... On your next post, the one about the predator corn, what a delight. When you get creative, you get going. That was very entertaining... I loved it... Michael
  14. Just a quick comment on something else that will probably tank the Deep State faster than was already happening. An Islamist terrorist (but British) invaded a synagogue on Jan. 15 and held several people hostage. Fortunately, he was the only one shot in the end. But this crap is now going to start up again. And, of course, the fake news media is saying this is due to mental illness... Does anybody remember any terrorist attacks by shooters, bombers, etc., happening under Trump here in the USA? I don't. But I do remember a crapload of them happening under Obama. And, if things go the way they are going with this antisemitic attack, this propensity will return until MAGA gets back in power. Not good. Incidentally, the left has been going apeship on promoting antisemitism during the last few years (even in Congress), but always saying that it isn't really speaking or acting against Jews. Heh... Look where that leads... I'm not the only one who sees this. And since the Deep State is promoting it, the Deep State is one of those who is going to own it. Michael
  15. Tony, To play word games with? To compete and find out who can self-congratulate the loudest? That's all you have done so far re instinct. And that's been over years. Besides, I have given you plenty of information to look at over the years about this with oodles of examples--I've done that several times--and you just won't look. Sorry. My interest is conceptual, not semantic or competitive. Different strokes for different folks... So I'll keep studying and learning about human nature and hopefully become a great fiction writer one day. And you will keep crowing and whatever else rings it for ya'. See? We don't have to agree, not even on what we are discussing. You and I are not talking about the same thing. So win-win. Michael
  16. Tony, When discussing reason, you are laser focused. When discussing instinct, you go all over the place. Case studies and examples become principles, one principle need not agree with another, exceptions become universals, you conflate opinions with facts, higher-level abstractions become axiomatic, and on and on and on. I doubt you know what an instinct is and I further doubt you are interested. I have no doubt you want to kill the word dead. Michael
  17. btw - This thing about determinism--both for and against--is another example of the error of reifying the part and calling it the whole. Many parts of human beings come as "the given" (already determined) and other parts are chosen by us. All throughout, there is one area that impacts both and it is generally ignored in O-Land: growth. It is a habit in O-Land to attribute growth to learning from experience, but it isn't the same. One does not learn eyesight from experience the same way as one learns to ride a bike from experience. One grows into eyesight and one cannot not grow into eyesight, however, one can refuse to learn to ride a bike. Learning how to see is instinctual. Learning how to ride a bike is not. Michael
  18. From what I read of Dennis's post, he was not a determinist. That is not a statement a determinist writes. Michael
  19. Tony, That's not what instinct means. Michael
  20. It's fixed now. For anyone interested, please go back and reread it. Michael
  21. TG, It was probably my memory. No biggie. This is what happens when one posts without checking. btw - Memory is a fascinating topic. Rand wrote very little about memory. I think the reality of it would have appalled her until she got used to it if she had learned the reality of it when she was alive. The way most people think about memory, at least long term memory, is that mental events and abstractions reside in your brain somewhere and you simply retrieve them as you need them. However, the way memory really works is more like the cloud in computing. Bits of the memory of, say, an event reside all over the friggin' place in your brain and a lot of them are redundant. When you want to recall something, your brain literally reconstructs the mental event from the bits and pieces that are all over the place. More often than not, bits and pieces from other events, from movies, from stories, from childhood traumas, and on and on get in and become part of your certainty of that event. That is, until you check. What's worse, that little sucker in your left brain Michael Gazzaniga calls "the interpreter" will simply make shit up if a bit or piece is missing from everywhere in your brain. That sucker exists to make sense of things even when they don't make sense. And since it has a lot to do, it will make up shit for the parts that don't fit at all so it can move on to other stuff. If you don't have good self-esteem and understand this, it can wreak havoc on your soul when you are wildly off. That doesn't give you an excuse to softly murmur the name of one lover in the ear of another while making love , but this stuff exists in all of us. Your memory is mostly correct except when it isn't. The best way with memory is the Reagan adage, trust but verify. I'll correct my other post so William Perry is no longer the source of the prosecutor's brief description of PARC. That was fun, but now that I know it's inaccurate, ah hell... I am sure he will understand, though. He himself is a prosecutor. Ask any prosecutor on earth about the reliability of eye-witness accounts of a crime... Michael
  22. TG, That might be the one, but Perry is calling PARC a "closing argument" in that article. I specifically remember him calling it a prosecutorial brief or something like that back then. btw - I actually agree with his characterization in that article that it is a "closing argument," but only in the sense of boring the shit out of the jury and making them long for an easier death. There are much better ways of telling a story for a closing argument than droning on and on and on and on and on with a long-ass mostly irrelevant bill of trivia--unfairly interpreted to the most cherry-picked standards of logic most of the time at that. But who knows? Maybe my memory did play tricks on me. It wouldn't be the first time. I am certain of the Barbara story, though, and I have my emails with Perry to consult on the rest. Michael
  23. This is where I have ALWAYS been. Why Trump’s Pivot Away From Pushing the Jabs Is a Bigger Deal Than Most Realize Why Trump’s Pivot Away From Pushing the Jabs Is a Bigger Deal Than Most Realize NOQREPORT.COM I generally do not watch Trump rallies. I don’t need to be convinced to vote for him should he decide to run in 2024 and unlike the current occupant of the White House, President Donald Trump can go without... From the article: I think this is how the vast majority of his critical supporters feel about the vax issue. They know he corrects his errors--and changes his people--as he gains more information. Michael
  24. Here is a truth anyone looking into Q-related stuff should take into account. And let's not forget the collusion by the fake news media. It's called "controlling the narrative." Fortunately, Q did what it had to do--and did it brilliantly--before it got infiltrated. Like I've always said, it was one hell of a persuasion tool (using secrets, codes, metaphors, implied threats and comeuppances, and a whole slew of persuasion techniques, especially "word of mouth" enhancers). It kept the public focus on "fraudulent 2020 election" and "Deep State evil" ideas long enough for them to become un-erasable by the predator class propaganda machine. Then the infiltration happened, but they did it wrong. Their influence was like trying to catch fish in a river with one's bare hands. There was nothing to grab that would not easily slip away. Nowadays Q is a colorful part of history, no longer a cultural force. I feel privileged to have lived through it. What an achievement! Michael