Some actual words from Stella Immanuel (quack doctor who claims she cured hundreds of patients of Covid using hydroxychloroquine) via YouTube. In this video "doctor" Immanuel speaks about the threat posed by Witches and Warlocks.
Granted, the actual words Minus FJ was talking about concerned her assertion that alien DNA is being used in medical treatments. "They're using all kinds of DNA, even alien DNA, to treat people" Immanuel has said. Though, as per Minus FJ, "her DNA comments were reasonable given her actual words". His defense is that "alien DNA" refers to animal DNA and NOT the DNA of an alien from another planet. Because animal DNA would be "alien" to human DNA.
Minus determined that this is what she meant because "science has discovered no alien life on other planets... and therefore [talk of] alien DNA originating in extra-terrestrials [is] ridiculous". But to claim that witches and warlocks exist ISN'T ridiculous? I challenged Minus to defend the other ridiculous claims made by Immanuel, but he declined. For obvious reasons. Although he said he was declining to defend the other ridiculous claims made by Immanuel because I didn't raise them.
Sure, even though some of the other ridiculous claims made by Immanuel are covered by a meme I included in the post. Let's assume I didn't raise them. I'm raising them now. Apparently Immanuel also believes the David Ickes conspiracy theory that says our government is run by a lizard person Illuminati. Or "partially run". Because Dotard isn't a lizard person who disguises himself by zipping on a human suit (or is able to shapeshift into human form)? (while other past presidents were reptilians, including gwb and Bill Clinton. Also possibly Obama).
My conclusion? Immanuel is a crazy person. Although Dotard continues to insist he is "very impressed" by her. Because she recommended hydroxychloroquine. And he was (I presume) unaware of her other crazy beliefs (when he tweeted the video she appeared in). But should he not have looked into her (or asked an advisor to look into her) before praising her? You think he might, lest he come off looking like an idiot for praising an insane person.
Yet he refused to back down when presented with the facts concerning Immanuel. His weak defense was "I know nothing about it". So why tweet about something you know nothing about? That doesn't seem very wise to me. You can not know someone but do a Google search before posting a possibly embarrassing tweet. Or at least admit you were wrong to post a tweet praising a crazy person. Yet Dotard can not admit being wrong. He is incapable of admitting being wrong. His devoted cultists can also not admit that Dotard is wrong.
Why Minus felt compelled to defend Immanuel in regards to her crazy claims concerning alien DNA being used in medical treatments. Even though she was obviously speaking about DNA from aliens from other planets. And not DNA from species alien to human DNA. By the way, a "witch" can refer to an old woman. But a "warlock" is not used to refer to an old man. This is how I can be sure she is talking about people who practice witchcraft (i.e "the practice of magical skills, spells, and abilities").
Also why assuming Immanuel was talking about space alien DNA is completely reasonable. In any case (given her other claims) Immanuel is clearly nuts. Not that Minus FJ isn't nuts. Although he may be a little less nuts. More or less than Dotard, I don't know. But all three are clearly crazy (Dotard, Immanuel and Minus FJ). Though only one is in a position of power he should be removed from ASAP (because his response to the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans).
By the way, lizard people are aliens.
| Vox: Where do lizard people come from? Aside from people's paranoia, lizard people are thought to primarily come from the constellation Draco, though there are some theories that reptoids come from other systems like Sirius and Orion too. Basically, they're aliens. |
Those two facts (Immanuel believes in lizard people and lizard people are space aliens) proves that Minus was 100 percent wrong when he "deduced" that Stella wasn't talking about aliens from other planets.
It's as simple as this: Anyone who makes excuses, justifies, tries to explain the "doctor" Stella Immanuel is either self-deluded or like Immanuel, a crackpot.
ReplyDeleteIt's useless to argue and present facts to JoeCon, Minus, and the Marxist. They're cultists and no amount of rational explanations will bring them to their senses. They're Trumpers, therefore, unreachable with facts and evidence.
Meanwhile, a very large majority of the American voters do not approve of the Dotard. Every time he opens his mouth he shows the American people that he is woefully stupid and corrupt.
Lol! Mine was an interpretation with "caritas" in mind as opposed to your default position of developing an understanding based upon "animus". I'm not a mind reader. But apparently, your understandings based upon "animus" are the equivalent of the proverbial "Vulcan mind meld"..
ReplyDelete...and as pShaw states above, "Anyone who ... tries to explain the "doctor" Stella Immanuel is either self-deluded or like Immanuel, a crackpot."
ReplyDeleteThat includes YOU, Dervy. :)
I can't explain why people believe such nonsense.
DeleteMaybe we should let the prednisent speak...
ReplyDelete“We have it totally under control. It's one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
“Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”
“When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero. That’s a pretty good job we’ve done."
"We're heading back [economically] in a very strong fashion, with a V. And I think we're going to be very good with the coronavirus. I think at some point that's going to sort of just disappear, I hope,"
"And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away,"
I'm generally a charitable kind of guy. So let me ask this of our more conservative friends... was Trump lying in all of these statements, or just wrong? Since all of them false, it has to be one or the other.
I doubt I'll get an answer to such a direct question, or even an explanation of why the question cannot be answered. Instead the premise of my query will be attacked, or perhaps I'll be asked if I still beat my wife.
But facts are facts, stubborn as they are.
If Trump lied in all of those statements to the American people, he should be removed from office. If he was simply mistaken, or grandstanding, he is not smart enough to hold the office.
Unless I'm missing some other interpretation.
He believed them at the time he made them. He had "faith" in his Fauccian promise makers of "contact tracing" and "social distancing"... and with a handful of cases, it could have been true.
ReplyDeleteIt will go away. If not the virus, then all the panicky doomsday reporting and progressive bedwetting. It'll be gone the second DJT is no longer wearing a big red target on his back. THAT, you can take to the bank.
"Panicky doomsday reporting" could absolutely go away. With someone competent like Joe Biden in charge.
DeleteThe deaths won't go away... just our " knowlege" of them. The cloak of Gyges heals all Drmocrats.
DeleteTo make the knowledge about deaths that continue to occur is why Dotard demanded the data goes to his administration before the CDC. Under Biden, the CDC will get the data first. The "cloak of Gyges" is being deployed by Dotard and will be swept away by Biden.
DeleteThe CDC is reporting the data now, but that hasn't stopped the cloakers of Gyges to stop running around and sqwacking about the great pandemic. Excess deaths are down to near nothing.
Delete"Two thousand people died in a single day!" Sqwak, sqwak!
Delete58 thousand people die every week. Who sqwaks for them?
DeleteEverything that lives must die. That doesn't mean we should accept people dying unnecessarily. Which is what is happening now due to Dotard's inaction. He was warned back in December of 2019 and did nothing for 4+ months. He should be charged in the Hauge with crimes against humanity.
DeleteCuomo killed half of them by distributing the sick amongst Nursing Homes throughout NY. What a maroon!
Delete:)
DeleteI'm not a Cuomo fan. Anyway, "Cuomo has deflected criticism over the nursing home directive by saying it stemmed from Trump administration guidance".
DeleteIf he was simply mistaken, or grandstanding, he is not smart enough to hold the office.
ReplyDeleteCare to apply that standard to Fauci? How about Sleepy Joe?
ps - I think you meant "wise" not Smart. Because wisdom is the virtuous opposite of "just" or "justice". The moment Trump ever displays any authoritarianism, he's immediately labelled a fascist... yet fascism or draconian totalitarianism is the prescription your hysterical criticisms cry for. "Why can't we be more like Communist China"? Waaaaahhhh....
ReplyDeleteJoe said... "I think you meant "wise" not Smart"
DeleteNope, I meant smart. Not being smart enough to see when he has messed up, is way different that someone being "wise" enough to see, or know that.
As for the commie, fascist, authoritarian, marxist labels, I don't use them. I felt it was wrong when people did so in regard to Obama, the same for Biden and the same for Trump.
We should be able to say people are wrong without resorting to labeling and name calling.
I disagree. Trump is plenty "smart". As Nietzsche said, how much "truth" we have the strength for.... THAT is the real challenge.
DeleteSuppose, finally, we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one basic form of the will — namely, of the will to power, as my proposition has it; suppose all organic functions could be traced back to this will to power and one could also find in it the solution of the problem of procreation and nourishment — it is one problem — then one would have gained the right to determine all efficient force univocally as — will to power. The world viewed from inside, the world defined and determined according to its ‘intelligible character’ — it would be ‘will to power’ and nothing else. (Nietzsche 1966, §36)
Delete
DeleteA ‘scientific’ interpretation of the world, as you understand it, might therefore still be one of the most stupid of all possible interpretations of the world, meaning that it would be one of the poorest in meaning…. But an essentially mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless world. Assuming that one estimated the value of a piece of music according to how much of it could be counted, calculated, and expressed in formulas: how absurd would such a ‘scientific’ estimation of music be!” What would one have comprehended, understood, grasped of it? Nothing, really nothing of what is ‘music’ in it! (Nietzsche 1974, §373)
Trump the Just. THAT will have been his epitaph. NOT Trump the Wise.
ReplyDeleteDotard will be remembered as the first president to serve time in prison. Hopefully. There is certainly a MUCH greater chance of that happening then him being remembered as "Trump the Just". Not hard though, since the chance of that happening is ZERO.
DeleteSo Joe... let's say I agree with you and regarding his statements"he believed them at the time he made them."
ReplyDeleteDoes that make them any less wrong? Does that relieve him of the responsibility to go back and correct the record on his statements?
Fauci, to his credit, has publicly said medical folks, himself included, made some errors early on. He has gone back, explained where they were, and as new facts come in, changed his way of thinking. He has said the situation is constantly evolving. But he has not, since his January comments, minimized the impact of Covid.
President Trump, in continuing to do so, in spite of contrary evidence, shows he is, again, lying, believes, in spite of all the evidence that he himself cites, what he is saying at the time, or is wrong.
As to Fauci and Biden, let's say this... even if both of them, unelected people, are lying through their teeth or dead wrong, does not change the equation as it relates to President Trump.
Conservatives, used to say it was impossible for a person to commit immoral acts in their private life and fulfill the duties of the presidency. Whether I believe that or not does not matter.
My question is this... what changed that allowed so many conservatives to drop what for years was a public pronouncement of the need for truth, honesty and general goodness in who we elect to the presidency?
Why does the right work so hard to excuse and rationalize Trump's statements rather than just admit he lies, or is wrong?
Dave, the answer to your question lies in Plato's "Parmenides". There is the simple deductive logic of mortals, and the complex inductive logic of the gods (absolutes). People think they're the same, but as the dialogue proves, they're not. What is "moral" for a man is "immoral" for a man, and what "moral" for a citizen is "immoral" for his "governors". A "good" policeman will lie to criminals, trick them into confessions. Is his lying "immoral"? Does the executioner of a death sentence not 'murder'? Is his action in upholding sentences passed "immoral" (Joseph d'Maistre, St. Petersberg letters)?
ReplyDeleteAnd what of people who apply their personal morality to implementing government, would it "harm" if the police refused to use force or the executioner refused to kill?
Don't apply the logic of mere mortals as Parmenides did. Heraclitus had the better approach. Xeno, his student (again, Plato "Parmenides") used a complementary logic. His was the "analysts discourse" to remedy/cure Parmenides "university discourse". No Nietszchean/Zarathustran inductive tower rope-walking leaps necessary.
You are completely full of shit. As usual. The answer to Dave's question does NOT lie withing Plato's Parmenides. Dotard is not lying or killing for the public good. All is lies and incompetence are harming and killing us. He lies and acts corruptly on behalf of HIMSELF. Dave's question had to do with immorality in a politician's personal life, btw (Clinton's affair with Lewinsky, for example), so your examples are 100% irrelative anyway.
DeleteFine. then "Contrast Lindsey Graham coddling Sally Yates with the Democrats grilling Bill Barr. He treats her like a respected public servant, while the Dems treated Barr like a criminal. The lesson is not that we are somehow better than they are; it is that they fight much harder than we do.". What do we like about Trump? He Fights!
DeleteThat's the "jouisance" answer, The first was the reasonable one.
DeleteMarx... also having read the dialogues, I generally default to a 10 Commandments stance. I think whenever some lies, God is grieved. And I believe that is true even when there might be a higher cause for that lie, as there was when Rahab lied.
DeleteThe difference is that no one trying to say Rahab did not lie. Every ethics investigation into this episode in the Bible acknowledges that she, in fact, lied.
And this seems to be where we part ways.
The right, conservatives, Trumpistas and you, Joe, minus, innumerable sock puppets and the rest of the rightwing blogging crew, seem unable to just stop, and admit that Trump lies.
I'm willing to accept that there are times when a president has to lie, for instance to protect American lives. So tell me where we stand. Were any of the statements I posted above lies, whether or not they were in service to a higher purpose?
It seems pretty simple.
Bill Barr is a criminal. Even if he was never convicted for his role in the Iran/Contra cover up. Hopefully this time he will be convicted and serve prison time.
DeleteSo, if familiar with the Book of Joshua, perhaps you are also familiar with the Book of Kant and the Axeman (argument vs. Benjamin Constant).
DeleteWhy is it important to you for conservatives to acknowledge a fact that everyone lies?
Ecclesiastes 3. A time for every season. Better for a leader to ask forgiveness than permission. For a leader already HAS our permission.
It isn't so important that Trump make his lies a reality as it is for him to TRY and MAKE his lies a reality.
DeleteThe Good and the True are often in conflict. And it takes STRENGTH and POWER for the "good" to prevail.
A little more Nietzsche:
DeleteTruth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive. (The Will to Power)
What are man's truths ultimately? Merely his irrefutable errors. (Gay
Science)
How much truth does a spirit endure, how much truth does it dare? More and more that became for me the real measure of value. Error (faith in the ideal) is not blindness, error is cowardice. Every attainment, every step forward in knowledge, follows from courage, from hardness against oneself, from cleanliness in relation to oneself. (Ecce Homo)
To what extent can truth endure incorporation? That is the question; that is the experiment. ( The Gay Science)
Joe asked... "Why is it important to you for conservatives to acknowledge a fact that everyone lies?"
DeleteGreat question, but inaccurate.
I'm asking conservatives to acknowledge that President Trump lies.
And here's why.
Conservatives for years have worked hard to hold Democrats to a strict moral code. In fact, standard conservative mantra since the Clinton Administration was that immorality, as evidenced by Clinton's lies and his affairs, disqualified people from office. Think Bill Bennet, Ralph Reed and Jim Dobson, among others.
What I am trying to ascertain is whether conservatives ever believed what they said "back in the day" or if they were just being a bunch of political hacks.
Did conservatives ever believe what they were saying about lying or morality during the Clinton and Obama administrations.
An answer to the question as to whether Trump has lied, in spite of his denials, would go a long ways to helping this left of center person to better understand the political landscape in which I live.
Clinton moved the Overton window. Now live with it.
Deletebtw - There is still a group of Republicans who follow the old moral code. They're called 'Never-Trumpers'. They're voting for Biden this year, and voted for Hillary in '16. You can keep them.
DeleteBecause Democrats taught the rest of us a lesson. Nice guys finish last. And they're the cavers-in to policy compromises you'll never again witness in the RNC.
DeleteThe era of "moral actors" in Government and politics is OVER. From here on out it'll be skin on skin.
DeleteMarx said... "The era of "moral actors" in Government and politics is OVER."
DeleteYou may be right. My question remains... did conservatives ever believe that morality was central to qualifications for office? Or was it always a ruse? Did people of faith, the ones that try and follow the "Thou shalt not lie" commandment, ever believe their words back then?
There are few of the religious conservatives of the 80's, 90's and aughts in the Never Trumper crowd. They've stayed with Trump. My question above remains...
Did conservatives ever believe what they were saying about lying or morality during the Clinton and Obama administrations.
As to the Overton Window, what policy within that window did Clinton move? Are you suggesting that Pres Clinton is somehow responsible for conservatives abandoning their fealty to morality?
DeleteWhat ever happened to staying with your principles and living with the consequences? And since when do conservatives put the blame for one person's actions on another?
BTW... I don't contest the "Nice guys finish last" comment.
DeleteBut that does explain the acceptance of and defense of the lies, obfuscations and shadings of truth coming from the Trump Admin.
Most especially from supposed people of faith.
Did they ever believe directly? Thats like asking if they believed in G-d. They believed that other people believed that morality was central. Then Democrats proved to them with Clinton that their belief in others was misplaced. That those others had no moral centers, or had lost it when it came to holding "their party" accountable. And so the overton window shifted. We lost faith in the goodness of the people. We would no longer help bring down Nixon as not one Democrat voted to impeach. Winning is now everything. Romney was a neverTrump exception. He will be primaried and replaced.
DeleteConservatives still believe in morality, but no longer morality within the context of Democratic politics.
DeleteMarxist said... "Conservatives still believe in morality, but no longer morality within the context of Democratic politics.
DeleteHow does one determine objectively when a context does not deserve a moral action? Are you saying that morality is situational?
Marx... where, or how is morality useful in American life, in the context where people can carve out places where they can eschew morality?
DeleteHave you read the Bible other than Joshua? How about when Lott sleeps with his daughters? Ecclesiastes 3?
DeleteLets face it, as Berlin said, some of the great goods cannot live together (liberte, egalite, fraternite), so we have to choose, and this is the tragic nature of choice.
The "GOP" has been an immoral party since Reagan. Minus greatly admires the nihilist Slavoj Zizek. As per the wikipedia Nihilism entry "Moral nihilism asserts that nothing is morally right or wrong".
DeleteBlaming Bill Clinton is total BS. A consensual affair doesn't excuse kidnapping kids or not developing a strategy to combat the virus thereby guaranteeing unnecessary deaths (as recommended by Jared and accepted by Dotard) because they stupidly thought only Blue states would be affected.
I call that what it is. EVIL. "GOP" = evil party.
Derv... a consensual affair?
DeleteThis has been my struggle with the Dems for years. Up until the Clinton affair, they said rather strongly that an employee could not actually consent to an affair with a superior because of the "power dynamic" of the relationship.
It wasn't until Pres Clinton was caught in his relationship that we saw how the Dems had squishy morals, calling the tryst with Monica consensual and leaving their past stance behind.
A president, asking a young intern for a sexual favor is the ultimate in an abusive power relationship. Dems have consistently hurt themselves by failing to admit that Pres Clinton violated the standards they had staked out for years.
Why not simply say Pres Clinton abused his position of authority and took advantage of Monica? Certainly if it had happened in a GOP presidency, that's exactly what they would have said.
"A president, asking a young intern for a sexual favor".
DeleteIt is my understanding that she pursued him. Although he should have said NO. And, yes, he did abuse his position of authority. But that does not mean it wasn't consensual. If Monica had been under age Bill Clinton could have been charged with statuary rape. There is no law that says a boss consenting to sex with an employee is illegal. Which does't mean it isn't a moral failing -- but it isn't sexual assault.
Similar to how Dotard cheating on his wife with Stormy Daniels wasn't illegal -- but the campaign finance law violation was (the crime Michael Cohen was convicted of).
Derv... you posted this...
Delete"There is no law that says a boss consenting to sex with an employee is illegal."
100% accurate. No argument there. My problem is that the various organizations like NOW for years said it should be illegal and that it was impossible for an employee to give consent to a boss.
Whether we agree or disagree on that doesn't matter. What matters is that the various organizations who for years pushed those views and gained credibility within the Democratic party, suddenly went silent when one of their own, Pres Clinton, got caught.
And that reality, IMO, has weakened the Dem Party for years. Because they looked tough on the issue, until Clinton was snared.
No, I agree. You think Bill Clinton should have been impeached and removed from office? Moveon says he should have been censured. That isn't a non-tough response. It would have acknowledged that what Bill Clinton did was wrong to do what he did.
DeleteIn any case, I do NOT believe that Clinton lead to Trump. Barack Obama was a decent family man and the Right made up lies about his wife being a transsexual, his children being fathered by a different man, and him having homosexual affairs. You think they wouldn't have concocted these lies if the Democratic party had went after Bill Clinton more aggressively in regards to his affair with Lewinsky?
erratum "...is immoral for a public sevant" vice man, above,
ReplyDeleteTo you (and Dotard), "public servant" = license to steal.
DeleteThe president's will is the Masters Discourse. It is the function of the University discourse to make the Master's (Trump's) "jouissance" seem reasonable to the hysterical people. in a democracy (who mistakenly believe themselves to be master), a function that they have abdicated during the Trump presidency because they believe they have discovered "truth". They haven't...they've merely discovered a 'feeling' of the truth (power).
ReplyDeleteDotard is no "master" in any sense. He is a moron spectacularly unqualified to hold the office (an office where his job is to act as a REPRESENTATIVE, not a king). We (the majority who voted for HRC) don't give a crap about Dotard's "jouissance". Additionally, the power he holds was stolen with the help of Putin and Kobach.
DeleteHis office makes him master. And the office gives his jouissance the force of law.
DeleteIn case your addled mind has forgotten the president is the SERVANT of the people. Not their master. Unfortunately Dotard donnie thinks otherwise. But he will be awakened to reality. Unless of course he can get Putin (and possibly other tyrants) to effectively help him AGAIN.
Deletelol! You believe the noble lie. BWAH!
DeleteBetter than your argument that power entitles a ruler to lie for whatever end he desires (noble or not). Although I don't see an expression of that belief in RN's comment. Are you referring to your mind reading abilities again?
DeleteHow many of Obama's lies did YOU question, Dervy? lol!
Delete"Actually, Obama was telling the truth....". lol,
DeleteI questioned none of Obama's "lies" because he is an honest person who doesn't lie. I can't question a "lie" that doesn't exist. Or at least one that I'm unaware of. Certainly he did not lie (if he lied at all) as much as Dotard. This you KNOW. Why you write "acta non verba" all the time. It's your way of saying you don't care that Dotard lies.
DeleteAs the proverb goes, Alexander never did what he said and Caesar never said what he did. Obama merely followed the Caesar model.
DeleteKeep it all under Gyges cloak!
DeleteDotard never does what he says or says what he does. Your "Gyges cloak" is Dotard's favorite garment.
DeleteHey Derv, I wonder if The Marxist believed President Obama was lying for the common good when he said "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." IIRC, people like The Marxist have never forgiven Mr. Obama for that noble lie, the kind of lie that The Marxist says is to give hope and comfort to people in times of uncertainty and stress.
ReplyDeleteMy experience is that The Marxist, et.al. did not apply that sort of explanation or reasoning to Mr. Obama.
Do you, Derv, have any idea why?
Actually, Obama was telling the truth. Based on the fact that the ACA grandfathered in old plans. But the health care insurers saw an opportunity to push people into more expensive plans by lying to them about the ACA forcing them off the plan they were on.
DeleteThey could still sell their grandfathered-in plans? Sounds like a recipe for a declining business model. And what business adopts one of those? Not a profitable one.
DeleteNo, they couldn't sell them to new customers. People who already had them could keep them. I don't know wtf you're talking about with the rest of your comment. These were plans they had already sold -- so I assume they were profitable.
DeleteSo its truthful to state that businesses will accept unprofitable business models? Who knew?
ReplyDeletebtw- the profit comes from product standardization and uniformity. needing to train agents to service a diverse insurance portfolio is expensive and contributes substantially to all that "waste" Obama lied about eliminating in the insurance industry.
The plans were grandfathered in. The ACA didn't force the for-profit health insurers to eliminate them. That was their decision. Obama told the truth.
DeleteAs for "product standardization and uniformity", health insurers offer MANY different kinds of plans. They came up with the plans in question. They "accepted" them by developing them.