Strategizing on the Campaign Trail

Gerald Welch - Here are 24 times Hillary Clinton PRAISED the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and helped implement it as Secretary of State.

Phillip McKnight - Yeah, that's gonna leave a mark. Bad policy, just like NAFTA.

Rick Drew - Of course - because it can cost her votes.

Mark Champion - I am not a support of her but to be fair...she was not the boss so she was just following the bigger misfit's orders. She could truly have been against it or it is plausible deniability.

Gerald Welch - Except she has done this with multiple issues, whether she was SoS or not...

Mark Champion - Oh i am right with ya on this but i see how she can double talk her way out of it.

Muhammad Rasheed - The TPP fixes the NAFTA policy, and returns to the country what was lost.

Phillip McKnight - So why is Hillary opposed to it, if that's the case? I haven't read TPP, just bits and pieces of it and from what I've read it just gives Asia the same benefits Mexico and Canada got from NAFTA.

Muhammad Rasheed - She's opposed to it on camera because her dedicated partisan voting block assumes that it is a GOP item that is just NAFTA 2.0, the same as all leftists assume. The public has already made up their mind about the matter, and she is powerless to convince them otherwise. This puts her in a bad spot because, like Gerald and Rick said, she NEEDS their votes.

In turn, the right assume it's bad for no other reason than because Obama was pushing so hard for it.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is actually full of pro-Middle Class items that will provide a wealth of opportunity to grow our manufacturing class through the tech industry, partnered with Obama's college loan reform, with the Common Core item, and with the 100,000 tech jobs initiative. It's part of a long-term goal package that will bring back the American Middle Class growth lost with the implementation of NAFTA. TPP reverses NAFTA by opening doors on the Asian side of the globe that NAFTA closed with Canada's and Mexico's help.

Phillip McKnight - NAFTA was supposed to do great things, too. It did, just not for working people in the United States.

Gerald Welch - So why is she against it now?

Muhammad Rasheed - The campaign game strategy. It doesn't go deeper than that. If she wins the presidency, she'll flip again. On cue, since it doesn't make sense for her NOT to be pro-TPP.

Phillip McKnight - I'm not even clear on the current status of TPP, I just don't want to see the Asian version of NAFTA put a few more nails in the middle class coffin.

Muhammad Rasheed - It won't. It'll be fine.

Of course it IS a compromise package, with pet partisan items from both sides of the aisle in it, but the POTUS believes that the items he was able to put in it to further his legacy agenda will be worth it. I believe him.

Phillip McKnight - He also said if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. That hasn't turned out to be the case, not that I blame him, but still, he said it, and that hasn't been the reality. Point being, he was wrong and I don't want him to mean well but end up wrong about this, too.

Muhammad Rasheed - So, because the red states decided to reject Obamacare -- just to try and sully his legacy -- that means he was wrong in principle? That of the millions of people that did take part, the system didn't work exactly the same way for some of them, so that means it was a failure?

I have a fundamental problem with this concept, Phillip.

Phillip McKnight - Where did I say Obamacare is a failure? I have a fundamental problem with what I say being misrepresented. Hey, brother, I'm a Democrat, voted for Obama twice, but I'm moving beyond taking partisan positions just to be part of the team. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Muhammad Rasheed - Considering the original status post author, and his opinions on such topics, that colored your post to look a certain way to me. I assumed you were saying you thought it was a failure through that lens, despite the highly successful college loan reform actually being built into Obamacare (which I think is amazing) so I get easily defense about it.

Phillip McKnight - My apologies for not being more clear. Anyone that truly understands what transpired with Obamacare knows that Obamacare would have been vastly successful if over 30 Republican states wouldn't have fought it with everything they had. They want nothing to do with changing Healthcare from what it was before Obamacare. I loved old Mitch McConnell, who just changed the name of Obamacare, and said how successful it was for his state. If they had just worked on it, as it is very complicated, instead of dismantling it. It would be so much better right now, them's the facts.

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, what we got was the 'Plan B' of what the POTUS really wanted, but in the first go around of amendments to flesh it out, the college loan reform piece was added. That more than anything, I think, is why the enemy wants to dismantle it now. The big banks are losing billions upon billions by being forcibly removed from the middleman position in that process. You KNOW it's eating them up.

Scott Rocky - Uhm, it fixes nothing, and opens up the pathway to even more jobs going off shore. It also ends tariffs that were in place to protect certain American industries (such as sugar growers and textile manufacturing) It is going to increase the numerical limits set in place on certain foreign workers in the United States, which means even more American Jobs gone. It raises privacy issues for certain countries, such as Australia which has privacy laws for its citizens that are now void.

Scott Rocky - If it was such a good deal, why did they do it in secret? NAFTA, as crappy as that was, was at least presented to the people before it was passed.

Korac MacArthur - Its not "free trade" if its negotiated in secret and takes over 1000 pages to express, sorry..

Scott Rocky - @Phillip McKnight… what I would like is for my insurance rates to go down instead of up 18% since the implementation of Obahmacare

Korac MacArthur - You have to see the big picture. Obama knows its flawed as a strategy to make people demand single payer down the road, which he thinks is better. He is very foolish.

Phillip McKnight - I think all insurance consumers (everyone) would like to see rates go down, I'm not arguing the merits or criticizing the problems of O-Care, I was merely stating the facts surrounding the implementation and the resistance of the implementation of the law.

Muhammad Rasheed - Scott Rocky wrote: “Uhm, it fixes nothing…”

The President can’t demolish laws put in place by a previous President, so he was powerless to remove NAFTA altogether. But he could work AROUND it, working with Asian partners to expand opportunities that do not directly conflict with it.

Scott Rocky wrote: “…and opens up the pathway to even more jobs going off shore.”

More importantly, as the Obama Administration invested heavily in the growth of American math/science/tech in the long-term, the entrepreneurial immigrants from off shore will be coming here to take advantage of the newly fertile tech markets, creating new business, competing with the future boom in new American tech business, and eventually creating a brand new era of innovation with America in the lead again.

Scott Rocky wrote: “It also ends tariffs that were in place to protect certain American industries (such as sugar growers and textile manufacturing)”

The removal of market restrictions is a good thing, as it will increase competition and lower prices of goods for the consumer. The removal of restrictions will also enable smaller businesses… who were excluded from the big business cartels that the tariffs protected… to enter the markets, increasing job growth.

Scott Rocky wrote: “If it was such a good deal, why did they do it in secret?”

Obama’s pro-tech/science part of the TPP needed to be put in place soon in order to take advantage of the above mentioned tech items he initiated within his “Middle Class Growth” agenda. The so-called “fast track” used to push both trade agreements through the ratification process basically excluded the review of the legions of special interest groups in order to take advantage of the “hot” market conditions that the Obama agenda cultivated during his historic terms.

Muhammad Rasheed - Korac MacArthur wrote: “Its not ‘free trade’ if its negotiated in secret and takes over 1000 pages to express, sorry..”

lol None of that has anything to do with whether something is considered “free trade” or not, but the basic gripe is sound. A cartel of nations and/or industries that restrict access to their markets to anyone not included in the exclusive trade deal – whether it’s a monopoly by a threesome of North American nations, or one by a group of Asian plus Western nations – is the literal exact opposite of a market for “free trade.”

Korac MacArthur wrote: “You have to see the big picture. Obama knows its flawed as a strategy to make people demand single payer down the road, which he thinks is better. He is very foolish.”

He’s far from foolish, and strategizes for smaller gains through compromise with his rivals, over gaining absolutely nothing by stubbornly sticking to partisan "all-or-nothing" deadlocks, and spending his terms engaged in impotent and bitter back and forth battles (like a president sanders would have done). Also the President is a believer in the very non-foolish idea of putting in place templates that future like-minded Presidents can build upon later.

See Also:

Obama's Game: Secrets of the Trans Pacific Partnership

Reagan versus Obama

That Difficult Verse

I’ve been defending my faith within Internet philosophical arguments for a while now. In the wake of the 9-11 tragedy, and the resulting wars in the Middle East, standing my ground while patiently explaining to the crowds of Islamophobists how being a Muslim was not synonymous with being a “terrorist” has been near constant work.

In addition, I’ve also defended Islam from the older critics, whose opinions of the topic go a bit deeper than the shallower, propaganda ‘war bait’ talk. But just a bit. It’s not a big challenge pushing back on their claims that Islam and its prophet founder are inherently immoral in both literature and deed, since the facts that easily prove otherwise are at my disposal, and they of course prefer their passionate bigotry over facts. Child’s play.

Truthfully, I’ve found that preparing defensive arguments in the heat of spirited debate hasn’t been hard to do against the great majority of these political and philosophical foes. Using only poorly thought out arguments uncritically shared among each other, composed primarily of cherry-picked Qur’anic verses woefully divorced from context, along with their favorite of the most obviously fraudulent hadith, my opponents have been as comically unoriginal as their arguments proved impotent. Within my arsenal, my most effective weapons are:

1. Placing the cherry-picked verses back into proper context so the distorted picture returns to crystal clear focus.
2. Careful and patient explanations as to why the body of hadith is not infallible, and why it shouldn’t be considered so anyway, whether by the faithful, or the disbeliever as he tries to force me to accept it on terms it was never meant to fill.
3. Shining the spotlight on the line in between the tenets of the faith versus the culture/political tradition of an ethnic group that also holds onto Al-Islam as a part of its identity.
4. Interpretation of scripture.

Usage of the first of the two is practically ‘paint-by-numbers’ simple, and just involves measuring the strawman argument of the opponent against the greater context of the narrative revealed by returning the cherry-picked verse back to its proper place in scripture, as well as (in the case of hadith) measuring up against the spirit of the religious doctrine itself. If the debate is with a Christian, then I prefer to also help send the point home by drawing a parallel to a similar item within their book, which often shames with the sting of the hypocrisy reveal. Despite the simplicity of the no-brainer technique, the opponent is usually too prideful and blind faith committed to the anti-Islam stance to acknowledge the defeat.

The third is the one I probably use most often, whipping it around like a spiked iron ball with chain to hold back the fanatical anti-Islam crowd that falsely insist to a man that all honor killings, suicide bombings, and other patently unIslamic world news items, make up the very heart of the religion of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Use of the fourth tool is far more challenging, as it demands a deeper thinking into the meaty and multilayered meanings of sacred scripture. This requires big picture knowledge of the greater message revealed by the One God of Abraham, local messages of individual prophets as they applied to a specific people and why, and the simpler/narrower focused message for the individual soul. This is where the REAL work is done, and it is not to be taken lightly. This overflowing well is where heads of sovereign nation-states, high-ranking clerics, and influential judges are supposed to pull Divine Guidance for composing the laws, edicts, and policies to manage the rule of the billions of people around the globe. One could easily make the convincing case that performing that all-important work poorly is directly responsible for much of the strife humans have dealt one another throughout our post-Deluge history, as opposed to the fault of the religions themselves, like my unenlightened atheist foes typically enjoy uncritically propagating.

I am a Muslim, a practitioner of the religion of Al-Islam, and as such I believe the Qur’an is exactly what it claims to be. It is the final part of the One God’s divine revelation on earth, and it closes the canon on the body of sacred scripture. There will be no more messages to add to it. This is it. Islam is the religious system built around that message… perfected for us by the One God Himself… and if performed as intended, will enable the believer to prosper in this life and in the hereafter per the Lord’s decree. The Qur’an IS divine, it IS real, and it IS True. It is God Himself talking directly to His prophet, and to all of mankind, making His requirements known. Like all sacred scripture, the Qur’an is multilayered, composed of a most basic message right on top capable of being picked up by the simplest dullard, as well as deeper and deeper lessons that expand ever outward from the core of the Book, requiring varying amounts of meditation, time, intellect, and maturity to chew upon. No human can fully know the Qur’an; its divine nature makes this impossible. At best we can study it to show ourselves approved to pass the Ultimate Judgment to come, and receive our reward, but only God is divine and knows all mysteries great and small. For each of us who earnestly study the Book to learn that which our Lord wants of us, we can only master a part, and as we gather and fellowship to share knowledge and insight, add to the pool of understanding, strengthening the community.

  

Of course in order for this ideal state strengthening to take place, the earnestness of the study must be sincere; the body of believers must be steadfast in upholding the Word of God to place it on its proper pedestal, impossibly high above all other beloved and respected religious texts. The Qur’an is DIVINE. It came down as Sure Guidance from the Supreme, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Creator of all reality, and as believers, we MUST treat it accordingly. If within its pages we come across a verse that confuses us, the deficit is within ourselves. The response is to accept it, meditate on it, ask God for understanding, and ask other believers their opinions of the matter for possible insight. The bottom line is that the proper response to such a situation is to give the One God the benefit of the doubt that He knows what He is talking about – He knows while we know not. God’s knowledge is TOTAL. Ours is significantly less so. This is the nature of things; the nature of the rank order between us and our Lord, and why we submit our whole will to Him and Him alone.

The opposite is true regarding the body of hadith, and the growing scholarly works of learned Muslims who wrote from the time of the prophet’s passing to now. These works are NOT divine, composed of the opinions of men, and originating from the finite understanding of the human mind. Should one read through the hadith and discover an item that confuses as it conflicts undeniably with the verse and/or spirit of the Qur’an, the last thing the believer should do is simply accept it. Or worse, accept what the disbeliever says about it while attempting to justify why you should accept their Godless version of your faith as truth. No. Instead the prudent thing to do is to ‘red flag’ that hadith for intense scrutiny. As it is indeed the work of men’s efforts, and did not come from God, the believer is 100% in the right to criticize it, and if it is clear that it contradicts with the Qur’an, it should no longer be considered “hadith,” with a new term prepared to re-label it. This should be common sense, yet the phenomenon so accurately identified by Bruce Lee reigns true: Man-made traditions become figuratively chiseled in granite as they grow hoary with age, and the people come to treat them as infallible and untouchable. This happens naturally even over mundane, non-spiritual teachings, so how much worse for a body of tradition said to come from the mouth of the prophet of God? Quite worse to an obscene, idolatrous degree it turns out. Today many modern day Muslims will support questionable hadith over a misplaced sense of religious loyalty, even when the content is so obviously out of synch with the spirit of the Qur’an and the known character of the prophet, as to threaten the credibility of Al-Islam itself. This is unacceptable, and demands a serious reform of the hadith, with every single item combed through, line-by-line and meticulously cross-referenced to the corresponding Qur’anic verse that it supports. If the chosen reformer appointees cannot match it to anything in the Qur’an – again via verse NOR spirit – then it must be re-labeled as something less than "hadith" and set aside, now downgraded to historical curio rather than religious tenet that can potentially do harm to the community.

Naturally I have specific items in mind for such rough treatment, notably any and everything that suggests my prophet was a “pedophile” from referencing the “six year old Aisha” marriage myth. Of the numerous contradictory ages given for when Aisha married the prophet, the enemies of Islam conspicuously zero in only on the youngest, less likely ages. They reject everything of actual substance and value in the religious texts, but manage to uncritically believe with all their fanatical might the false gossip that the prophet of God was a child molesting fiend. At least they are true to type, and prefer to feed upon the evils they so gleefully spew. Meanwhile, the details around Aisha’s sister Asma abound in the historical record, allowing those who actually love truth to calculate Aisha’s true marriage age lying somewhere in her late teens. Whoever the first person was who first spread the falsehood that she was six when she got married, I personally look forward to witnessing the angel seize him by his lying, sinful forelock and flinging him head first into hell. A fit dwelling place indeed for such a creature!

I say that, but since it was probably a believer that spread the rumor, who knows if this person performed enough good in his life to override the sin of slander to win paradise instead? Well, only God knows. Be that as it may, what angers me the most about this mess is that the believers took it seriously at all, and shoved it into the religious literature, where future knuckleheads would only use it as guidance for horrible behaviors. But why would the Muslim leaders ignore what God said about such mess? Note the following Qur’an verses:

39:18
Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best meaning in it: those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding.

24:12
Why did not the believers – men and women – when ye heard of the affair— put the best construction on it in their own minds and say, "This charge is an obvious lie"?

25:33
And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal to thee the truth and the best explanation thereof.

Embarrassingly, that second verse references an incident in which a rumor was spread about Aisha and Ali having an affair, with the heat from this false… shit… growing so thick, that the prophet himself began to doubt! This caused the Lord of the worlds Himself to have to step in with revelation to clear the names of the two “indiscreet but believing” innocents before the whole community was surely ruined. The verse 24:12 is itself the penetrating question from God that should – among a community of sincere believers! – eliminate any and all slander and falsehood, with all gossip halting immediately upon entering the very first believer’s ear. 

The believer puts The Best construction on things, and when studying the Word of God in scripture, follows The Best meaning in it, and in order to be vested with true understanding, interprets with The Best explanation thereof.  The One God stated quite plainly that this is the behavior He expects from those who profess belief in Him; behavior that is often described in secular parlance as optimistic. God said that His people do not gossip and slander, they give one another the benefit of the doubt that they are indeed best in behavior and free of scandal, and above all interpret scripture according to The Best meaning/explanation, putting The Best construction on it in their minds.  This in order to rightly align with the will of their Lord God.

Is there any doubt that those who behave this way, see their fellow believers this way, and interpret the Word of God this way, are indeed "rightly guided?"  The One God said this was so, and surely Allah speaketh the truth!  It is in this way and mindset that I try to interpret the Qur'an as I read it, praying for my Lord to bestow upon me the insight, understanding, and wisdom needed to do so accurately from The Best possible explanation as Allah hath so decreed.  And who am I to want ought but what Allah hath decreed? Glory be to He!

The "six year old marriage" clap-trap kindles my ire but it has not proven difficult to defend against as it is so clearly a falsehood.  But there is one item that has come up here and there that genuinely intimidates me, and I have shamefully turned away from it over the years, fearful that deep study might even weaken my faith and cause me doubt.  Over the years I've waited with baited breath for the arrival of that long-time coming, canny foe able to fling it in my face with skill & panache, and laugh obnoxiously as I frantically slap about unable to satisfactorily defend against it.  To my distress, the disturbing item comes not from an obviously fraudulent hadith, like the "six year old marriage" one, but from the Qur'an itself! Today I have grown weary of continuously peeking over my shoulder for it to eventually catch me unaware, but have decided to finally confront it on my terms... terms that are composed of trust in my Lord, that He knows everything about the creation He has so skillfully wrought, and that He indeed knows best all things.   This is the verse:

To put it mildly, the highlighted five words within the verse are difficult to dismissively explain away, and quite intensely problematic in our modern, progressive times.  At the dawn of the Age of Aquarius, where we will hopefully get to celebrate the achievements of the first woman President of the United States, I fully expect womanism and feminism to make their mark as the newly dominant political philosophies, with #BlackGirlMagic a potent symbol for the changes to come.  Consequently, my sacred scripture advising me to "beat them" frankly looks bad, and it CAN'T be ducked based on everything I believe about the Qur'an, even if my opponents never bring it up to weaponize against me themselves.  The few times it was brought up in battle, it was a throw away comment similar to this quoted sample:

"It is a horrible teaching to say one person should beat another because their made up man in the sky said so."  

Crude, and wrapped in that nonsensical and impotent atheist speak, my foe didn't realize what he had... wielding it clumsily as a hammer, when it potentially could've been a scalpel, as Thanos the Mad Titan ruminated over his first encounter with the so-called Infinity Gems, told in Jim Starlins' flawed but classic Thanos Quest.  So to confront this intimidating and difficult verse head on we ask: What is 4:34 saying exactly?  Well, we can start by eliminating what it's NOT saying.  My foes are fond of implying, if not outright accusing, that one of Islam's goals is the subjugation of women, and that verse 4:34 is basically commissioning Muslim men to go around beating women willy-nilly as they so desire, to show them all who's boss.  "Uncritical" is how I usually label their arguments, as they rarely ever even scratch the surface of what Islam is about.  They prefer instead to, in an amazing demonstration that they have zero interest in what the texts actually say, to build and/or prop up the strawman effigy to argue against.

God said that the only thing He will judge us on is how righteous we are.  He doesn't care about the rest of it. In fact, He said He made us all different just so that we could learn from each other. Combine that fact with the Qur'an's many mentions of slavery... freeing the slave is listed as one of the greatest Good Deeds, with the obvious message of the religion to discourage slavery. Just these two points alone -- we are all equal under God except for our levels of righteousness as we individual believers strive to stay on the Path of Allah, and the listing of freeing the slave as a major Good Deed in a belief system built upon collecting Good Deeds to get into heaven -- should be enough to prove that Islam isn't about subjugating our women at all.  She is a believer just like me, to be judged for her righteousness just like me, so for what reason would I have for trying to break her spirit, and making her a slave for no other reason than because she is a woman?  The reasonable, logical answer is that I would have no reason to do so based on the general message of the Qur'an and on the message of this particular verse.

It's clear that the first two lines in the verse are talking to a very specific type of man, a very specific type of woman, within their very specific type of relationship.That would be the male as sole provider who maintains the lifestyle for a kept wife, in her role as manager of the home.  God is acknowledging that this is usually the relationship dynamic between married couples (although at no point does the Qur'an command couples to conform to this traditional model, which is not insignificant, since other coupled models would render the disciplinary steps presented in 4:34 inapt). We understand that with the male as the provider he is the maintainer of her quality of life, and because of his generally higher physical strength he's also her protector. Again the Muslim males's duty under this particular agreed upon arrangement is to maintain his wife's quality of life by supporting her from what he provides monetarily, and to use his strength to ensure her safety and security.  The Muslim woman's duty in this relationship is to guard her righteous status as a believer.  She does so as a kept wife by being responsible for the home her husband provided, and guarding her own morality/chastity (because the Qur'an is ALL about that).  The next few lines in the verse explain that if the woman breaks her side of the agreement and wilds out, abusing those items she is responsible for as home manager, then there are a progressive series of disciplinary measures that the man is allowed to take, with the third one in the series being the beating.  It should be clear that if God's instructions are actually being followed, her behavior at this point would be quite disgraceful.  Note that there is another option described extensively elsewhere in the Qur'an that is not pointed out in this verse: divorce.  Divorce is absolutely an option for relationships that aren't working out in the Muslim household... with numerous verses dedicated to the rules God set for them.  In fact, in addition to both parties able to use it to sever the marriage if they both agree to split, it is also the woman's disciplinary option for when HE doesn't live up to HIS side of the covenant.  Yet here we find it is conspicuously NOT listed as one of the options when the wife is (for whatever reason) wilding out on the husband, abandoning and/or abusing her marital duties.

Why?

I think the clue lies in the addition of the word "lightly." On the surface you can easily interpret that as "Don't hit her TOO hard."  Sure, why not? Of course that's the low-hanging fruit interpretation.  But going deeper I think it also means that God is talking to someone who doesn't want to do this... to a husband who's genuinely fond of this woman and doesn't want to hurt her (perhaps revealing a glimpse into why a young bride is acting up in the first place...?), who simply wants his wife to uphold her end of the arrangement.  He loves her, does not want to divorce, but she must be held accountable for her disgraceful actions.  The second and third of the progressive disciplinary steps are used when all the talking, pleading, and appeals to reason, duty and her status as a believer have failed.

But the word "lightly" means that you still need to know your wife to me.  It means intimacy. Candid communication. Because honestly, how would you know whether you were spanking her "lightly" unless she told you what "light" was to her?  What would be a "light" blow for one person, would be too hard, or too soft for another.  You know what "light" means for your wife, because this was already discussed up front in the ground rules for the arrangement.  She was well aware of what each step in the progressive disciplinary series meant, and when it was time for the third step to be implemented -- because she never stopped wilding out up to this point -- she was set down and patiently explained to that because of her unacceptable behavior, the light pop across the ass had now arrived.  Everyone involved had already discussed this, and are well aware that disciplinary actions are designed... not to treat her like a slave/subhuman... but to correct the behavior, which in this case she has broken the marriage covenant by not holding up her end of the agreement. The consequences of disorderly conduct should have been spelled out in detail in the contract so that no one is surprised when it gets to that point.

So just like the verse itself is describing a very specific type of marriage arrangement model, that controversial third disciplinary step is also only to be applied under very special circumstances, in a relationship where the two parties would not end up going down a road of horror from it.  He would have to know her, and she would have to know him well enough that they would be able to recover from the event and grow from it.  Without really knowing each other, that third disciplinary action would not be advised.  What if she is acting that way because she quite simply doesn't like him and regrets the arrangement altogether?  Beating her, "lightly" or otherwise, is not likely to fix it, but will surely make it worse.  Any Muslim man/woman relationship in which the 4:34 'kept wife' stipulations do not describe, should probably seriously consider going the divorce route instead of applying that verse's third disciplinary step.

THE FRAY III: Battlefield Cleanup

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY DIALOG

Since my fellow Vancean-Fan foes... Paul, John, and William... had the nerve to kick me out of their ironically named "Brave Free Men" group for daring to challenge their worldview on items such as race and religion, I will here respond to all the dangling questions that I wasn't able to get to during the heat of the battle.  The battle to be henceforth known as "The FRAY," in which I defended myself with speed, agility, logic, reason, and wit, against three dastardly, unrepentant, hellbound hoodlums of a most disreputable sort.

It is my hope in providing this more than generous redemptive opportunity that they will at some point crawl, limp and lurch out of their cowardly hole and respond in kind in the comments section below (the semi-literate knave Paul Rhoads is familiar with this technique) so that the battle may continue on to its logical conclusion. Until then, I will simply consider the contents of this thread the warfare equivalent of delivering the merciful killing stroke to the moaning & twitching wounded.  Most of the comments I'm responding to below come from this original thread: THE FRAY: Crossed Blades Underneath a Twinkling Gaean Reach Canopy.  The responses were also linked there as well so it will be easier to track the flow of the entire conversation for those interested in reading the full dialog.  The comments from Paul I lead off with below came from the original Winston Churchill thread that started it all.

Very respectfully,

M. Rasheed, Cartoonist-Publisher
Graphic Novel Serialist
Tales of Sinanju: The Destroyer & Monsters 101
Second Sight Graphix
www.mrasheed.com

********************************


Muhammad Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “...taking head? ...a muslim miracle?? maybe Islam a true relgion after all and not some barbaric copy'cat pastiche hulking out of the dark ages it helped create to give us a pain in the neck????”

If Islam is a "copy cat pastiche" of Christianity, then Christianity is certainly the same for Judaism. The argument lacks sense on even the basic level. Each prophet confirmed and fulfilled the message that came before it. Muhammad and the Qur'an were no different.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “Muhammed was a fraud, a pedophile, a jew hater and a murderer. (Compare Jesus).”

On what possible basis do you consider Muhammad (peace be upon him) a “fraud?” Both the Christian and the children of Israel converted to Islam by the droves over the centuries. Your disbelief is empty and without substance, instead only anchored to blind faith stubbornness alone.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “??? empty sophomoric talk. If you believe this you are a know-nothing.”

Oh? This is the way all of the prophet-messengers of God functioned; each one brought the message reminding the people of the righteous path that their forefathers followed as believers. Muhammad reminded the Arabs of their stories of Abraham and Ishmael, and he reminded the People of the Book of their line of prophets from Abraham and Isaac on through the Christ Jesus, son of Mary. The Qur’an message told them to follow the way of the prophets… believe in the One God alone, do good, avoid evil, and beware of the inevitability of the Last Day when all of mankind will be resurrected and judged by Him who made us. Muhammad only spoke Truth, in the tradition of the anointed messengers.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “Mohammed, l say, was a fraud: he claims to have talked to angels. l claim he lied about that. ok?”

The omniscient One God, Supreme Creator of reality, confirmed that the prophet received the divine revelation from the angel Gabriel, yet here a Mr. Paul Rhoads says this is not true. Does it even make sense that I would believe you -- you who has not yet been right about anything at all -- over the Master of the Day of Judgment? Be reasonable, please.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “He ‘married’ a 9 year old. What is this if not pedophilia??”

Studying the numerous contradictory ages given in the body of hadith for Aisha, the scholars have determined from the material that she was closer to the age of nineteen based on the detailed information known about her sister Asma. Yet here we find a dedicated anti-Islam slanderer who, even though he doesn’t believe anything of substance within Islam’s texts, insists on believing with his whole heart all of the inaccurate, false gossip items in the literature. Surely this is a phenomenal test of a person’s character, and unfortunately for you, Paul, you appear to lack any. I suggest you repent.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “He killed people ([singy voice] defeding himself from mean attacks), does any one deny it?”

Of course he did. He lived in a time of active warfare with the enemy, one that was determined to wipe out the small band of Muslims to the last man. Such disgusting behavior is usually only stopped at the cutting edge of a sword.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “Jesus turned the other cheek: whatever you think about that it at least is a stark contrast.”

As I recall, Jesus had his companions fetch swords and keep watch while he prayed them all up in ritual devotion in the garden, only for the guards to fall asleep on duty. Jesus was less than pleased. When Judas led the enemy troops into the garden’s sanctuary… the chink, chink, chink of armor and thump, thump, thump of Roman soldier footsteps jerked the companions awake far too late to defend anything, and the Christ had no choice at that point BUT to “turn the other cheek,” innit?

I find your powers of scriptural analysis to be abysmal, sir. How do you plead?

Paul Rhoads wrote: “These behaviors of the prophet color his religion to this day. Objections? l've said somrsomething illegitimate?”

Considering there have been numerous times throughout the last approximate 1,500 years where centuries would pass with the three Abrahamic Religions living side-by-side in peace, need I remind you that the splendor & tranquility of Muslim-ruled Spain – a cultural ‘Mecca’ of learning and technological genius appreciated by all – was shattered by the Christian monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, who unleashed the savage Inquisition institution upon the world? Truly the “illegitimacy” of your remarks is profound on a nigh-cosmic level.

Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “I think we should discuss the various traits of a Vancian villain: sneaky, manipulative, violent to a precise fault. The kind of guy who has a balance of sociopathic tendenices and egomaniacal ones... and who wants to bend all others to his will. Even little girls whom he finds attractive and wants to take home. He might even start his own religion... didn't Vance write about that a few times? Any real-world megalomaniacal scumbags from our own human history would surely be coincidental.”

During his lifetime, Muhammad had such a reputation that he was nicknamed “the trustworthy,” which was directly responsible for many of the earliest converts who happened to know the prophet best on a personal level. The Qur’an… the divine and holy source text of the religion Muhammad propagated… was itself full of commands to allow people to repent if they have a change of heart over their wrong, and enjoined the believer to be generous and merciful, which contradicts your own opinions of both Muhammad and his faith, Will. I find no truth in you, and the nature of your continuous hostility is suspect to an amazing degree.

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “Or maybe a fundamental exploration of Theology. The underlying theme of the old law from the Tora.”

I’m pretty sure the “old Law” and the “Torah” are one and the same. What are you babbling on about?

John Justin Green wrote: “And the underlying principles of Christ and Mohamed.”

Their “underlying principles” were also one and the same. The basic message of the Gospel of Christ Jesus, and that of the Qur’an of Muhammad (may the peace & blessings of God be upon them both) were the same:

1.) Believe in the One God
2.) Do good deeds
3.) Avoid wrongdoing
4.) Repent when you mess up
5.) Beware the coming of the Day of Judgment! Die not except in the state of a believer!

The Qur’an expands from that basic message, providing more detail because Muhammad was accepted by his people as the messenger of God, and he ruled over them as a prophet-king as did the legendary Hebrew prophets of old. Consequently, the Qur’an provides civilizing laws/rules for how the believers must behave among each other so that they will not threaten their place in paradise with the growing bickering & hostilities that come inherent with human beings living among each other in community. The Christ’s people rejected him, and he knew not an earthly kingdom, thus the Gospel stayed narrowly personal and stagnant without the Qur'an-like growth of it's potential.

John Justin Green wrote: “Tora is the establishment of property rights and God's desires for respecting individual rights via avoidance of all encroachments by lies or physical invasion. Christ's message of forgiveness and individual efforts to forgive and love each other”

The Christ’s Gospel softened the strictures of the Law… which was made strict by the addition of punishment commands set upon the children of Israel because of their stubborn rebellion against God during their 40 year wanderings, as well as from numerous innovative restrictions they placed upon themselves that they falsely claimed had come from God. Jesus told them that if they believed in his message they would then be returned to a lighter burden, the one of the patriarch Abraham. His general, high-level message represented a mercy and forgiveness that covered generations of bad behaviors and disbelief, narrowed down to instructing them on how to deliver mercy themselves to both friends and foes alike. His people rejected his message in disgust, and like the pagan Meccans of Muhammad’s day, feared that the charismatic prophet would threaten the income-generating structure of their cold and legalistic institution.

John Justin Green wrote: “And then Mohomed's directive to follow the outlines for life he set and subjugate everyone and free will to those outlines.”

In context, the pagan leaders of Mecca had literally spent the previous 22 years trying to kill every single Muslim on earth. Later, when the 10,000 pilgrim-garbed Muslims took the holy city (without a drop of blood shed), Muhammad stipulated that the pagan was no longer allowed to be there. They had already broken the peace treaty, and proved themselves unworthy of trust, and certainly too foul of a creature to live near the Ka’aba, the House dedicated solely to worship of the One God. The People of the Book were also no longer welcome, as the followers of the Law had allowed their murderous jealousy to push them into siding with the foul pagans against their fellow believers, while the other doctrine was tainted by their worship of their prophet-messenger. All three groups had to leave forever, and thus the Holy City of Mecca is the only place on earth dedicated exclusively to the uncompromising monotheism required by the One God of Abraham, Creator of the heavens and the earth. All other Muslim World nations allow their presence to greater or lesser degree. 

 
John Justin Green wrote: “This is not compatible with the freedoms and respect of individual property and thought which was the basis of the US.”

The Holy City is a special case. The “basis of the US” has nothing to do with the state of my soul.

John Justin Green wrote: “Freedom of religion was a concept in the early US that did not realize the existence of such an incompatible theology.” 

In the Qur’an, God says you don’t have to be a Muslim to believe in Him, do good, and reject evil; you can follow other scriptures while adhering to these three simple commands, and receive your reward in the afterlife. That’s why other Muslim nations allow the People of the Book to live among them. Again the Holy City is a completely separate and special case. The equivalent to having only the specially-trained Levite allowed to go near the Ark of the Lord. A heaven-bound believer from the tribe of Asher would have had serious cause to regret should he have overstepped his bounds and touched the Ark, as it was not his place to do so; the same is true of Christians and Jews when it comes to Mecca and the great mosque.  This is of a higher level of consciousness than the mere earthly laws of nations.

John Justin Green wrote: “Muhammad Rasheed might strive to correct me, but I have become aware of duplicity in Islamic scripture. The redacted scripture after Mohamed left Mecca is an issue which I would like to see him deal with to our satisfaction. But he is likely to claim we can not understand why what seems wrong is actually good without an amount of study that would practically make us Muslim. I would like have my expectations exceeded.”

lol No, the answer lies above in my comment describing the nature of the differences between the Gospel of the Christ and the Qur’an of Muhammad. The former never got a good chance to address a believing community under the prophet’s rule, while the latter provided the ground rules for such a scenario while that community was being developed (and during open warfare with the worst enemy). Before the believers fled Mecca, they were a tiny pitiful band, and a big chunk left earlier to live in Ethiopia under the protection of the legendary Prester John (speaking of the Ark). The nature of that part of the message was necessarily narrow and personal, similar to the Christ’s message. Once Muhammad was able to establish a believing community in Medina composed of now hundreds of new believers and growing, the scope of the message expanded to speak to groups in addition to individuals.  

Muhammad Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “Indeed! As William Michael Mott points out: solopsim of such force that it bends reality! Vancian villans who create religions: Arman (Crusade to Maxus) - all about ending slavery, very aprops. .... Loomie is not a villan but he creats realities - one of which, as l recall, is identical to a situation set up by Maziran ... in fact out dear Muhammad Rasheed makes me feel like poor Turgen to his mini dragon! ... V. Faluche also created realites... all very appropos... our Rasheed, while denying clairity to all others, proclames a personal reality which he projects and maintains, in the manner we have seen.”

I’ll need more explanation in order to address this word salad with precision. I’ll set it aside in case he decides to expound with less mystery.

Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “@Paul Rhoads… don't forget: Viole Falushe has many personality traits and behaviors which are identical to those ascribed to Mohammed in both the Koran and the hadiths.”

The “don’t forget” is deceitful, since the Qur’an doesn’t describe the prophet’s personality at all, in fact it barely mentions him, other than to assure us that his example in walking out the Qur’an’s message the way God wants to see us do it, was sublime. The hadith on the other hand, as mentioned above regarding the Aisha controversy, is full of contradictory information because the numerous people interviewed centuries after the prophet’s passing were often less than truthful regarding the purity of what was “remembered.” The Qur’an alone is divine.

William Michael Mott wrote: “Apparently Rasheed doesn't realize that what we now call political correctness was repugnant to Vance, and his writings bear this out.”

The amendments you wish to add to political correctness in order to make it more palatable for you changes it so that it has a number of double-standard items built within, that makes it a tool for enforcing racism. You’ll have to come up with a different solution. I suggest simply treating people with respect, and stop acting like a hostile goon all the time. There’s a lad. 

 
William Michael Mott wrote: “In short: Rigid and unforgiving/unbending religious, social and political systems were the foils of Vance's protagonists. Always. Without exception. This would correlate well with Churchill's factual evaluation.”

1.) The Qur’an has much “flexible” room in it, with both your and some Muslim World rulers’ opinions actually at odds with the spirit of the text. Often what people perform as representatives of their subscribed doctrine, comes up short to that doctrine’s ideals. This should be considered common sense, yet you seem to have a problem grasping it. I am left only with the conclusion that you are functioning at a logic deficit. 

 
2.) “Rigid and unforgiving/unbending” social and political systems… as implied by the descriptions themselves, are mankind’s practical interpretation of the religion, side-by-side with those tribal traditions carried forth through the generations that make up the soul of their ethnic group’s culture. Should they reflect rigid practices that are mirrored in how they decide to perform their religion, it’s only because that’s how they want it, not how God said to do it.

3.) Churchill found factual information, specifically regarding Islam and Muslims, to be anathema to his personal philosophy, instead preferring foolishness, nonsense, and whatever he enjoyed sniffing off of his sweaty, stubby forefinger, to truth.  

William Michael Mott wrote: “A noble Muslim? Really?”

Quite. Who is more noble than one who submits his will to the superior knowledge and power of the Supreme Creator of the heavens and the earth? 

 
William Michael Mott wrote: “This sounds somewhat sanctimonious and supremacist, doesn't it?”

Him that rejects the Lord that made him is lower than dirt and lacks value. 

William Michael Mott wrote: “But of course it does, it's just par for the course, disguised as a half-jest.”

It wasn’t a jest at all actually. 

William Michael Mott wrote: “Having lived in a Muslim nation as a child, I believe all American Muslims should do the same, along with their families. Then they would have access to data which enables an accurate evaluation.”

This has the undeniable stench of a logical fallacy wafting around it.   

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “I think Mike is referring to the material travesties that are common to fully Muslim states.”

I smell more logical fallacy. Islam is over 1,400 years old. What’s common in the current war-torn aftermath of power & greed-fueled Euro-Imperialist aggression, as these nations struggle to regain their lost socio-economic footing, all while hostile nations continue to work to keep them destabilized, does not reflect the religious doctrine itself at all. To claim that it does demonstrates a mindset that hovers somewhere between willfull ignorance and deliberate deception.

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “Then I can not believe becoming a Muslim will stop your frequent bludgeoning!”

Should you repent of your foul insanity, and take on the glorious mantle of the noble Muslim, I will then see you as an equal and have no need to “bludgeon” you, as the transformation will of course restrain you from talking crazy all the time. Fear not! 

John Justin Green wrote: “If I do and I do not like it, the penalty is death. So I will need to consult my lawyers, prepare methods of escape and generally take extreme care before I do so.”

This would only be true if you lived in a Muslim State that enforced the so-called ‘apostasy laws.’ If you plan to be a wishy-washy Muslim, then I cannot advise you move to such a land. Especially if you can’t keep your mouth shut regarding your personal belief systems.

Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “I will posit it to you like this: You see every mention of Islam or Muslims or Mohammed as in need of your personal approval, and permission.”

Not so. But I do see every inaccurate or insultingly slanderous mention as an open invitation for debate. Freedom of Speech works in both directions, you see.

William Michael Mott wrote: “This is the attitude of a slave, even if a mental one. Is Allah not tough enough to take up for himself, without outraged, nitpicking revisionists to constantly go on the attack? Pretty pathetic.”

What’s ‘pathetic’ is your clumsy and ham-fisted effort to get me to agree to allow you to slander my faith at will without answering it. To me that is a clear attempt to trick me into signing away my Freedom of Speech. You should know that the effort colors how you present yourself in the exact way you’ve squirmed not to be seen, i.e., as a racist. Particularly of the specific racist plantation owner that took part in the sharecropping system, who duped the desperate former slave into signing the agreement that effectively returned him to the shackles. That’s the cloth your personality was cut from, and it is quite offensive and hateful to see it slither around so boldly.

William Michael Mott wrote: “A real God would take care of his detractors himself. He would not need constant harping and help, to deal with even imagined slights.”

My God is no less than the One God of Abraham. It is He who created Adam from scratch, who told Noah to build the ark, who commanded Moses to remove his sandals on holy ground, who delivered the Christ Jesus from his enemies, and anointed Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophethood! Glory be to He! In His name did all the prophets of olde draw swords in His defense as is their duty as believers. I will do no less as I am true in faith and do not care to dwell in the pits of hell with the likes of such as you. 

 
William Michael Mott wrote: “It is ironic that you read Vance, Mohammed, as your mind is not really free.”

Freedom is my birthright, vile beast! How could it not be as I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger!

William Michael Mott wrote: “You are enslaved by a cruel political system which masquerades as a religion, and you dare not tolerate a stray thought that makes you question your programming.”

Wielding the Free Will that my Lord has gifted me, I dare whatever I so wish to dare. You speak only from a proud ignorance of what you merely THINK you understand, but in fact do not.

William Michael Mott wrote: “I have lived in a Muslim society. There were many beautiful things there, and many filthy and merciless ones. Backwards, actually. The kinds of things that had a housekeeper begging my parents to adopt her daughter and bring her back the USA, to escape the culture and religious insanity, but which they were not permitted by law to do. The kind of things that go on throughout the Muslim world today, where black people are still sold and held as slaves, women and girls are brutalized, and boys are raped. American Muslims should move to the Gulf States and experience this cultural enrichment first hand.”

I also have lived in Muslim society, but since I have knowledge and understanding of the very religion you so ignorantly vilify, I also hold the powers of discernment capable of separating the people's culture/tradition from the tenets of the faith. I challenge you to find the Qur’an verses that support what you saw as being part & parcel of Al-Islam. When you cannot – and of assuredly ye cannot – I will then expect you to demonstrate a colossal lack of integrity and reject the bold facts you discover with a reddened face. 

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “What does God want Rasheed?”

The One God wants His creation to acknowledge Him as the ultimate source, to bow its will to His, obey His commands, and thus prosper both in this world and in the next.

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “In our mind Mike that is so. But the overlapping identities of race and belief here make for an association which Rasheed believes is also a cause effect relationship. And coincidental. He believes we are white supremacists and that we have issue with Islam from the same source as our racism. It is a self verifying loop which can not be proven wrong any more than you can prove that I do not command invisible undetectable magic dragons which I insist on. AM I right Rasheed?”

The Euro-ethnic has a tendency to vilify anything he perceives as a threat to his global dominance. The “Muslim World” is a villain because those nations have dared resist Euro-Imperialist subjugation, and you fear that they will somehow regroup and pick up the legendary expansionism of the Faith’s early history where they left off, and manage to overcome you. In addition, you fear that this nightmare scenario will provide an opportunity for the frequently pro-Islamic Black American… who has been the traditional face of the Euro-ethnic’s savage atrocities… to take a long overdue revenge for wrongs both old and new out of your oily hides. The root cause of your vilification of Islam is the fear you will lose your precious monopoly of power that you have conquered and slaughtered so many to attain. As a Black American Muslim I watch you squirm under the fear of this karmic nightmare scenario with interest, having culturally borne witness to your historical wrongs from my dual identity. So when I mix ‘race’ with ‘religion’ in these discussions from a seemingly similar place, it’s only because my vision penetrates you deep from two directions at once. ;)

Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “I would hope that we could discuss Vance, without bringing race into any of it. Why do you feel the need to do so? Again, are you attempting to create racial tension where none existed previously?”

Need I remind you that your precious Churchill was a notorious racist? Both you and Paul sing his praises like he’s the coolest thing EVER, which to me reveals itself as a ringing endorsement for racism. Your open hostility from your first post did nothing to alleviate that impression.

William Michael Mott wrote: “In other words, I don't care what color you are. I care only about your character and your mind.”

Meanwhile, without any understanding of the religion itself, you’ve vilified all Muslims in the mode of the classic bigot. lol Again, there’s no truth in you, Will. Try harder to fake it at least.

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “Un-testable belief should not be pushed at anyone.”

Do you somehow consider my defending my faith from ignorant slander and strawman criticisms to be “pushing” it on you? My goal is actually to reveal how stupid you sound mouthing off with pretend authority on a topic you are proudly ignorant of. It’s clear that you deleted me from your “Brave Free Men” *snort* group because you lost confidence in your ability to bluff me with fake knowledge. I would not be robbed of my battle victory so easily though. Now I just need to put this link someplace where you are sure to read it. 

John Justin Green wrote: “The whole subeject of race is seriously flawed and irrational. I think I will explain this to Rasheed in a good way tomorrow.”

Actually I agree that the concept of ‘race’ is indeed flawed and irrational. I’ll admit to bias however, since the concept was invented-refined by the racist, Euro-ethnic slave holder at my expense. 

John Justin Green wrote: “He thinks we have nothing new to show him but that is not true.”

Of course you don’t. William himself is in the role of my traditional foe. His heads line the wall of my study, FYI.

Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “I see such self-inflicted victimhood identity as inherently ‘racist,’ and the fact that it is even brought up, repugnant.”

Well, you should know that since you’ve demonstrated that you lack insight into anything at all, and I frankly consider you a buffoon, your opinion doesn’t mean anything. As the kids say, you may now ‘take a seat.’ In fact, take several. At this point I’ll admit bafflement as to how you can manage to even type so much without biting yourself to death. “God protects children and fools.” 

William Michael Mott wrote: “Vance was a Caucasian of Irish descent. So why then would Rasheed read him? After all, he wrote about white imperialism and expansionism into the cosmos. Isn't that anathema to whiny, overly-sensitive self-identified-victim PC types?”

I’m aware of the past and past attitudes that are now primitive and unfortunate. I’m also able to enjoy older works in the proper context of the time they were written, as long as there is some positive trade off that makes the effort worth my time. With Jack Vance the effort was always worth it, especially in his brilliant fantasy tales and others that pleased the superhero fantasy fan in me.

Muhammad Rasheed - John Justin Green wrote: “But Mike we may be so culturally biased that we are unaware of said racism. So we must give it a fair hearing. First Rasheed must make crystal clear what he mean by racism.”

“Racism” is the infliction of institutionalized behaviors performed by members of the dominant conqueror class that limits the freedoms of another class of people based on identified physical characteristics that make up “race.” The victims of racism are deliberately restricted so as to artificially prop up the conqueror class as a superior people, with racist behaviors designed to humiliate and break the will of the conquered on the psychological level for generations to come.

Muhammad Rasheed - William Michael Mott wrote: “Why even bring it up in this forum?”

The conflict was heralded by you three dancing in an obscene pagan orgy around the racist effigy of Sir Winston Churchill. Our battle is thus multifaceted despite your slipshod denial efforts.

William Michael Mott wrote: “It is designed, again, simply to create a false narrative of victimhood and oppression.”

In the philosophical debate, I've taken the side of defense. My efforts in preventing my own verbal victimhood and oppression have been successful to date, hence the banning from your “Brave Free Men” *snicker* group.

William Michael Mott wrote: “No one is being oppressed or racially profiled here--unless it is everyone other than Rasheed, and he is doing it to us. Without basis, grounds or bearing.”

lol Truly, you should wear a thicker skin if you are going to continue to be so obnoxiously hostile to Muslims you encounter on the Internet. At the very least, learn how to evaluate the opponent’s capabilities before you attack.  

Muhammad Rasheed - Paul Rhoads wrote: “... l think that our rascally friend in fact really wants to talk about racism : it's the only thing that really interests him…”

Both race and religion are topics I enjoy discussing. I can go either way. The religious ones are meaty though, and why it took me so long to get back to you.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “…beacuse his version of lslam is just a faccade for a sort of supercharged judaisized Christianity…”

What in the WORLD are you talking about? Judaism, Christianity and Islam are known as the three “Abrahamic Religions,” Paul. Do you understand that? What Islam do you think I’m supposed to believe in that isn’t directly linked to the messages of the prophets from the previous scriptures? The more you type the less you know it seems… 

Paul Rhoads wrote: “…and his politics are just leftist boilerplate...”

Allow me to nip that gross stereotype in the bud, too: I hate both communism and marxism, and in my research found Senator McCarthy to be correct in his findings. 

Better?

Hell, he was MORE than correct. 

 
Paul Rhoads wrote: “…so l'm going to start another thread.”

Sweet. Pour out some malt liquor on the ground for me.

Paul Rhoads wrote: “Bravo John: you have done what l couldn't do: get our friend to partisipate in some positive and vaugely polite exchages! You're a better man than l...”

I told you if you are decent and respectful I would mimic the behavior in kind. Let John’s brief example be a lesson for all, and aid in guiding Right Conduct here on out! 

 
The invitation to join me in my lair is open to all. Your expressed apprehension regarding getting in trouble at work for having your hostile douche-bag behavior available for the world to see can easily be squashed by simply not being hostile douche-bags. This valuable advice is free and without charge. You’re welcome.

*** [found John's original "Brave Free Men" Group invite post] ***


John Justin Green -Please excuse the implications imagined or real. This is where we can all fight in peace! Everyone is welcome. No reason why we can not have a back room to rumble and keep the common room well kept.

Muhammad Rasheed - Here you are, John:

Muhammad Rasheed - Those are the comments from our last discussion that I didn't get to answer before. The invitation is open to join a true "Brave Free Men" arena if you are up to the challenge. I promise I'll duel you three with my left hand. ;)

Peace!

John Justin Green - You answer questions on your blod where we are not even there. That is a fake conversation. If you were honest you would have answreed them here where we could debate. And if you somehow missed it I will repeat. You are unwelcome because of this blog where you are editing and adding to create a fake conversation. This is horribly uncivil and If I had you in frint of me I would very likely end you. Yiu are a disgusting creature. Go watch the man who I linked. I TRUST HIM NOT YOH FOR TRUTH ON ISLAM. Explain away all his findings and explain away everything we have learned. But you chise to not so so here. Most of your answers are nit arguments hut just contradiction evrn on your own blog which goes along with you have nothing real to work with.

John Justin Green - Sorry i did noy realize this was within the by no means group. But im leaving my comment above. Anyone here can jiin and see the duplicity comparing the two sites. The liar has been exposed so tske a look now before more editing.

Muhammad Rasheed - From your anger I take it you read my responses to your questions/comments then?

SCORE!

You are so sensitive. lol Come on over and post your responses in my comments section, please. You know you want to. Come on. You know better than to actually believe it would serve me to change anything you numbskulls post. ;)

We can't convo here or it will break the rules. I'm not trying to temp Steven's death ray of doom.

John Justin Green - Yes I do want to do that. There are a few ansers you made which are actual argument like the age if the wife where we could be corrected. The the rest of the geanstanding and hughly stylized contradiction is tiring when debate is the interest. I will try. You need to resolve this behind the scene editing to regain some confidence in your character. That is worse than Katie Courick and Dan Rather.

John Justin Green - It was not our posts you changed. You add in your responses which where not in our exchange sfter the fact. So ut misrepresents the discussion. That is a nice term for lying.

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, I've had some experiences in the past that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I need to save my discussions, so you may as well stop talking about that. Just control your tongue so you don't reveal your true nature ("very likely end" me???) incriminate yourself in some way. We can all be gentlemen and stick to the topics. I'm not going to censor you at all; if you don't want to be shown in a bad light, then don't perform badly. That's all.

Or don't. I can battle either way. Come on.

John Justin Green - I understand that. I have had prople delete my ideas on a facebook page they controlled. Just comments they did not like. It is madening. I would never do that to anyone and never have. The record is too valuable to me. So I had no problem with your copying. But the responsibikity to keep it unaltered remains and by coping selective or adding you wind up doing the same injury and disrespect.

Muhammad Rasheed - I added new responses to questions that I didn't get to before you banned me, questions I told you I was getting to later. I needed closure, even if my plan to draw you back in didn't work.

Muhammad Rasheed - Call me a "purist."

John Justin Green - I axkrd more than once for you to say what God wants. You did not and also did not in your adding later. Or did I miss it? So if you only answer the questions you want then it is in no way our conversation you are portraying.

Muhammad Rasheed - No, the comments from you three you see in "THE FRAY III" are whole in the previous "FRAY" series. Just click the links to them at the bottom of this one. The whole discussions are int he other links, if that's what you were fussing about. Trust me I WANT you to see the whole arguments, and have the ability to copy/paste fromt hem to make your points.

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, it was near the top of this one.

John Justin Green - You need to make a note to id the ansers you added after the exchange. Itslicize or something and note that it indicated your answers afterward.

John Justin Green - Then we are good.

Muhammad Rasheed - I answered all the religious ones I didn't get to before in this thread.

Muhammad Rasheed - I also copied the part from you three I was directly answering, so it shouldn't be hard to see what i'm talking about, correlated to the point your were originally trying to make.

Muhammad Rasheed - We should be able to pick up where we left off in this one.

John Justin Green - No one reading your edited version would know to check. Come on. You need to leave no doubt that you intend the exact record is presented. That would not relect well in this respect. Just do the extra work of a change in font or some other indication with a note that those are added afterwards.

Muhammad Rasheed - okay, fine. sheesh...

Muhammad Rasheed - Can't I just explain all of that in the introduction?

Muhammad Rasheed - Like a link back to the first Fray?

John Justin Green - Progress! You get a promotion for that! Im revising my earlier unfavorable regard.

Muhammad Rasheed - Wait, I DID explain that in the intro! I explained that these were questions/comments that I didn't get to answer in the other threads when they were live. I can just put a link back to the full discussion in question, right? Then people would get it better.

John Justin Green - Ask yourself if a reader goes to your page and reads, are you sure they will understand how that was developed? It presents as coversation though it is not. So a reader will assume it occred the way it is presented. If you put some fine print at the bottom it is still a misrepresentation. Very like advertising tricks. So do what needs to make the truth obvious.

Muhammad Rasheed - I guess I can just copy my answers back into the main thread...

Muhammad Rasheed - (i knew there was going to be some shit with you.)

John Justin Green - It is a chalange to truely communicate

Muhammad Rasheed - For what it's worth, i appreciate you making the effort. The discussion was fun.

Muhammad Rasheed - You and Paul do a good job at mimicking that Vancean-type dialogue when you get a roll going.

Donovan S. Brain - Call it what you like. Bold Lions or the Life, Peace, and Freedom Party might be better names.

John Justin Green - Likewise. And it was a figure of speech about ending you. It had no literal meaning and was used to express how angry I was. But it likely could be read differently by you so I edited it hoping it was not seen.

John Justin Green - Paul is a huge player in that arena and elswhere he is a substantial and lively fellow. It is a resl loss to not have hin here. You are of a similar build and also good for this place. And argument is a good thing. Without that it gets pretty dead here.

Muhammad Rasheed - Trust me, I know. I thought we were about to change the game.

Muhammad Rasheed - It would've been SOOO fun.

But you can come over to my territory and we can perfect that style among us. William probably won't since he was definitely the weak link.

M. Rasheed - The part of our conversation from yesterday that stands out to me, John, is when you said you would never delete comments from someone "never have and never will." Yet you banned me from the group because I wrote stuff you didn't like.

This is hypocritical and unacceptable behavior. There's no excuse for it. The rules for battle are thus:

1.) Refute my comments with facts, logic, reason, and wit (if you're able).

2.) Admit defeat with honor and back down.

3.) Proclaim that you need time to regroup, go research, and return to repeat #1 above.

This is how true "Brave Free Men" battle. Banning people, deleting comments, etc., are blatant dishonorable surrendering behaviors. Period. Please make a note, and bring your ready and sharpened sword.

En garde!

John Justin Green - Well now I have been tossed from the By No Means Facebook group into the sea after your last provocative effort got me angry with you. You are ruining your own playground there but maybe that is what you want. It is being run like a public library. The admin is a book store employee. You are a subtle and effective troll Sir. Congratulations on that.

M. Rasheed - I TOLD you to bring your argument over HERE where you could spew your venom as you liked! The Mod already gave his Smade's Tavern warning to us all, and even pitched that other reckless fool into the sea for his pains! I refuse to accept responsibility for your lack of control. Here... sip some warm mead and get your head together.

Pick one of these threads and simply respond to the arguments here in the comments, or start a whole new argument as it pleases you. And stay out of trouble!

See Also:

THE FRAY: Crossed Blades Underneath a Twinkling Gaean Reach Canopy

Son of the Fray: Shedding the Big Two

THE FRAY III: Battlefield Cleanup

WARNING! This Discussion Forum is Guarded by the Thought Police! NO DISCUSSIONS ALLOWED!

The Spirit of Trullion: A Religious Dialogue within the Alastor Cluster

Churchill's Anti-Islam Drivel Revisited

A Tribute to Jack Vance (August 28, 1916 – May 26, 2013)

Curing Racism: An Objectives Plan from History's Lessons Learned

Muhammad Rasheed - Study Confirms Black Boys Are Not Safe: Whites Associate Black Faces as Young as 5 with Violence, Criminality

Tony Boyd - Now that research has backed up what has been known for at least century, can we get some solutions and actions on how to stop it?

Muhammad Rasheed - There are solutions:

Reparations/ending Black poverty + only Black cops in our communities + dedicated protection/defense to keep savage, jealous people from destroying our communities as they begin to rise in success (again) + Black political control-representation of our communities + lifted business-economic restrictions on Blacks

There are no mysteries here based on a study of what has gone on before regarding when we were at our most successful, and what happened to take it away from us, time after time after time. RETURN to us what was stolen (you can attempt to make up for the stolen lives by padding the wealth coffers) and then LEAVE US ALONE.

Tony Boyd - I agree on reparations, protection from those specific ones that would do us harm, derail our development, lifting business restrictions on Blacks but I disagree on isolating ourselves, if that is in fact what you are advocating.

Muhammad Rasheed - Not "isolation," but a certain amount of dedicated, community-wide "Me Work" is necessary to make up for lost time, Hype.

Muhammad Rasheed - Turning inward... the way we had to do to a more extreme degree during Reconstruction, in order to get our literacy and political knowledge up... as a "cocoon phase" just before we Launch.

Tony Boyd - Gotcha.

Eugene Argent - Good video. But the race soldiers who shot Tamir Rice knew that he wasn't a threat. That's why they drove right up to him, instead of stopping at a distance. It's not all about misperception.

Muhammad Rasheed - They perceived him as easy prey...

Eugene Argent - Correct.

Jeremy Travis - In what way(s) would we not be isolating ourselves from the larger US society?

Muhammad Rasheed - It wouldn't be any different than the model other successful ethnic groups used... fresh off the boat as immigrants, took the time to build themselves up first by investing into their own communities and controlling business/local politics... and THEN had influence and their own unique contributions to the greater national society. During the build up period (when everybody was making fun of them for being raggedy immigrants, or former slaves, or whatever), it represented a certain amount of limited isolation, because they needed to work on themselves. They needed "desegregation" to keep people from trying to deliberately restrict their growth because of either ignorant hatred, or jealous, fearful hatred of their potential.

The LAST thing a building community trying to get its socio-economic legs under it needs is that fake "Integration" to sabotage the effort, and prevent the community from first establishing/maintaining its own power bloc base of support, like every other successful ethnic group has. How could they do so while devoting all of their efforts towards working in that other community to build HIM up -- in a perfect imitation of the the work that went into building him up over you in the first place during the slave/maid eras? It doesn't matter what your actual title is if you aren't doing it to help YOUR community. If no matter how successful you are, there's still some of that "glass ceiling/racism is real but I'm trying to overcome it in this company" kind of talk on you, then get out of there and do that work for your own people.

Muhammad Rasheed - Be that hard-working "slave-maid" for yourself and build up your own community, and then step onto the world stage as a sovereign nation within the greater nation (the way the Jewish community functions, which is the sole secret to their phenomenal success). All of that "The white man won't give me a job! Capitalism is bullshit!" kind of talk is old now. I'm tired of that ignorant shit.

See Also:

Keep Calm & Achieve Economic Inclusion

The Cure for Integration

BOOK REVIEW - The Racial Contract

Notes While Observing – The Crack in the Musical Bedrock

Pulling Ahead of the Pack

The Different Tribes in the Nation

A Real Black President

The Annual Tabloid Bamboozle

Muhammad Rasheed - "Update (June 21, 10:10 A.M.): A representative from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department gave Vanity Fair the following statement regarding the documents:

"Some of the documents appear to be copies of reports that were authored by Sheriff’s Office personnel as well as evidentiary photographs taken by Sheriff’s Office personnel interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources. The Sheriff’s Office did not release any of the documents and/or photographs to the media. The Sheriff’s Office released all of its reports and the photographs as part of the required discovery process to the prosecution and the defense.

"The original post is continued below."

I'm not posting that "radar online" junk rag that y'all are circulating. I'll share this one instead:

Tabloid “Truth” in Today’s Social Media Landscape

Muhammad Rasheed - FB needs to take several seats.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - There's video as well.

Muhammad Rasheed - Video of y'all falling for that click-bait bamboozle every year? Quit.

The Michael Jackson Trial: What Went Wrong?

Bill Vallely - It's not just the tabloids printing these stories. The Establishment Media is reporting it, and they have physical evidence collected by the police. Sorry, dude - Michael Jackson was a degenerate who abused little boys.

Muhammad Rasheed - "The Establishment Media" isn't reporting it, they are all uncritically sharing it from the same tabloid rag source ("RadioOnline").

But I'll admit I enjoy watching y'all step over the actual factual evidence of the case to hold tightly to the clear "wacko-jacko!" bs. It really does demonstrate levels of character strength. #lolAtSorryDude

Jamal Yaseem Igle - Actually, they are: LA Times, Huffington Post, Billboard, Vanity Fair, San Jose Mercury, and the Independent are all reporting on it now.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - And now USA today.

Bill Vallely - "The Establishment Media" isn't reporting it, they are all uncritically sharing it from the same tabloid rag source ("RadioOnline").

Did you bother to read the first line of the story you posed?

"Update (June 21, 10:10 A.M.): A representative from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department gave ***** VANITY FAIR****** Fair the following statement ..."

“Vanity Fair” is very much part of the establishment media.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - "In a statement, police spokesperson Kelly Hoover told the Los Angeles Times and Billboard that some of the documents featured in the gossip site's story 'appear to be copies of reports that were authored by the Sheriff's Office.' But she warned the media that their numbered reports are 'interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources.'"

Doesn't make it not true, much like when Wikileaks or Anonymous leaks info.

Muhammad Rasheed - Did you bother to read the actual case? Is it more honorable to read annual regular tabloid click-bait than the actual case to draw conclusions?

Jamal Yaseem Igle - @Muhammad Rasheed... I looked at the report, all 88 pages of it.

Bill Vallely - @Muhammad Rasheed... There's a simple enough way to solve any lingering doubt. All the Jackson family has to do is give permission to open the files and let them be read by everyone. And yet, they don't do that. I wonder why?

Muhammad Rasheed - @Bill Vallely... Vanity Fair posted the update where the sheriff's office said that they gave everything they had to the prosecution and the defense, and released nothing to the media. This rag story is being regurgitated by the prosecutors who were mad they lost the case. They just KNEW they were going to win because they had they popular media on their side, and it fell apart in front of their eyes as the defense destroyed them and their fraudulent "evidence."

Again, the sheriff's office said it gave everything they found to the prosecution and the defense at the time. There are no new revelations. This is a game MJ's enemies are playing every anniversary of his death. If you can't see it, you are in denial.

Muhammad Rasheed - @ Bill Vallely... I don't have any "lingering" doubts, because I'm up on the case. Consequently, between the three of us, I'm the one that knows what happened.

Muhammad Rasheed - Try and catch up, please.

Tom Hodges - The problem I have with this story is this is the only place I've seen this story.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - It's in the Atlantic as well.

Tom Hodges - Is one just a rehash of the other story? That's not unusual. Until I see something that's not online. I won't buy it. Sorry. But it's a bit too convenient for this to be coming to light now but only by an online news source.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - [links to LA Times & DailyMaily sites]

Tom Hodges - Ugh. OK. I stand corrected.

Muhammad Rasheed - No, you were right, Tom. All these sites are uncritically sharing it from the same "RadioOnline" source, which was owned by the National Enquirer guy. #trustYourInstincts

Tom Hodges - My gut tells me that this is Bullshit. I think had all this been true, he would have been locked up a long time ago.

Muhammad Rasheed - Of course. Here's the REAL reason he didn't go to jail:

The Michael Jackson Trial: What Went Wrong?

Jamal Yaseem Igle - @Muhammad Rasheed... Daily mail has video of what the Sheriff's department confiscated.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - @Muhammad Rasheed... No, the reason he wasn't charged with possession is that in California it would have only amounted to a fine of $2500 or a year of jail as a first offense. They shot for the moon and the case fell short.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) They talk about it it the click bait. Why does watching the camera roll around strengthen it?

2.) The case fell short because the prosecution was proven to have lied, and all the defendants were career grifters that preyed on celebrities. Read the case.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - @Muhammad Rasheed... You're in a real state of denail here now.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - "In a statement, police spokesperson Kelly Hoover told the Los Angeles Times and Billboard that some of the documents featured in the gossip site's story 'appear to be copies of reports that were authored by the Sheriff's Office.' But she warned the media that their numbered reports are 'interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources.'"

Jamal Yaseem Igle - They aren't denying the report.

Muhammad Rasheed - The full story is in the case, you are side stepping it to uphold the tabloid story that supports your bias, but I'm the one in denial. Alright.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - The case wasn't possession, it was molestation. they couldn't prove he molested the boy without a shadow of a doubt. That's the legal system.

Muhammad Rasheed - Why couldn't they prove it?

Tell me.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - LESSONS FROM THE MICHAEL JACKSON TRIAL (pdf) by Anne Melani Bremner

Muhammad Rasheed - From Jamal's pdf link:

She filed a false claim against J.C. Penney, alleging that she had been sexually assaulted by them and beaten, and was paid $165,000.00 by them. She failed to report this money to the welfare authorities while she was receiving full welfare. She lied on welfare forms under penalty of perjury. She lied under oath during the course of the J.e. Penney case, saying that her husband never beat her, and then during the course of her dissolution alleged under oath that her husband had beat her. She caused her children to lie, saying that at least one was molested by their father, and told a paralegal in the firm that assisted her that she lied and had her children lie. She told the paralegal that if the paralegal were to repeat that to anyone, she "would be killed by the Mexican mafia." She said she wanted her children to be actors and actresses, and that she needed to help get them money through Michael Jackson. She also made newspaper appeals for money for her son's cancer treatment, when in fact that treatment was covered by insurance. The newspaper editor testified that she believed the mother was a con artist. She also got money from celebrities such as Masada, George Lopez and Louise Palanker, purportedly for cancer treatment, and spent it on herself. She even took money from charitable sources meant to benefit her cancer-stricken son, and spent it on a breast augmentation and a tummy-tuck for herself. To gain sympathy and money, she claimed to many that she lived in a barn with chickens. Michael Jackson arguably was just the next extortion target in a series of many from a woman who "had always relied upon the kindness of strangers…"

Jamal Yaseem Igle - And you're doing the defense job for them.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means the prosecution didn't have a "credible" witness. Trails aren't about innocence or guilt, they're about what can be proven or not. That's why reasonable doubt is always a factor.

Muhammad Rasheed - This is an example of why MJ was found innocent. It wasn't just a glitch in a broken legal system, but it was definitively proven that in every case, the accusing families were con-artist grifters that preyed on celebrities professionally. Other celebrities that hired them before bore witness to their slimeball greed. Even in the midst of her crazy bs testimony, she still had just enough of a heart somewhere in there where she couldn't lie and say MJ had molested her kid.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - @Muhammad Rasheed... No, he was found not guilty. Like I said, innocence and guilt have nothing to do with jury trails. unless you have a quorum, reasonable doubt is always a factor. Who do we have to bring up Emmanuel Lewis?

Muhammad Rasheed - Why WOULD I believe proven con-artists over MJ? Seriously.

How is not being willing to take the word of a professional liar-thief over MJ making me "in denial?"

Muhammad Rasheed - Help me see how that works in your mind, please. Because honestly I don't get it.

Jamal Yaseem Igle - @Muhammad Rasheed... Because even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's it?

Muhammad Rasheed - That's what you're willing to destroy his reputation with? And that's good enough, huh?

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) The first grifter tried it, and MJ's attorneys advised him to settle it quickly so the courts/media wouldn't turn it into a circus. He did.

2.) When the grifter community found out that a very wealthy celebrity actually paid out, then they all showed up at his door with their hands out.

3.) Appalled, MJ regretted taking the attorney's advice, and vowed to fight to the end no matter what.

Bill Vallely - @Muhammad Rasheed... I'm sorry, what are you saying? That Micheal wasn't a degenerate, or that it's old news so we could just forget it?

Bill Vallely - "I don't have any "lingering" doubts, because I'm up on the case. Consequently, between the three of us, I'm the one that knows what happened." How, EXACTLY, do you know what happened? Were you there?

Muhammad Rasheed - You're being ridiculous now.

Read the case and find out whether he was actually a "degenerate" or not and release yourself from your proud indoctrinated bias. Go on now.

Bill Vallely - @Muhammad Rasheed... "You're being ridiculous now." No, I asked a fair question. You didn't answer it. I also asked why the Jackson family doesn't release the police files if they exonerated Micheal. You didn't answer that.

Michael Jackson was a degenerate predator who hunted young boys. Now sure why you want to defend a person like that.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) I know exactly what happened because I read the court transcripts, and the reports from journalists who were disgusted with how their colleagues were acting during their "reporting." Like you, they were only interested in the witch hunt and not in what actually happened. I don't consider that fair behavior, but scumball-ish. That's what happens when you feed yourself slander from those rags. You shouldn't, as it also infects your character.

2.) Why would I have inside knowledge as to why the family did or didn't do anything with their property that the public doesn't already know? My last name is "Rasheed." All Black people don't know each other.

3.) Michael Jackson was none of those things, and it is disgusting that people want to just believe it because they feed on gossip/slander to make themselves feel bigger.

Bill Vallely - @Muhammad Rasheed...1. I used to work for the State Bar of California and know many DAs. I got their insights on the trial.

Bill Vallely - 2. So, you don't have special information. You sure make it sound as if you do.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hurry up with #3 so I can respond dammit! >:(

Muhammad Rasheed - What are you typing with your foot?!

Muhammad Rasheed - Let's GO!

Muhammad Rasheed - stupid smart phones...

Muhammad Rasheed - Dude...

Bill Vallely - 3. The thing about history is that it always uncovers the truth. There are still legends of sycophants screaming shrilly to defend Jackson's reputation. And they can whitewash and stonewall for years - even decades. But eventually, the truth will always come out.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) You're trying to bluff me, and it's pissing me off. If this is the force of your argument then you can stop now.

2.) I read the case and the report analysis. That IS special information to you because you only read the National Enquirer headlines.

3.) lol The truth DID come out during the trial, genius. Read it and stop being a goober. Here:

The Michael Jackson Trial: What Went Wrong?

Bill Vallely - @Muhammad Rasheed... "1.) You're trying to bluff me, and it's pissing me off. If this is the force of your argument then you can stop now." I'm not lying. I was Head clerk for the State Bar of California for four years. It's quite telling how much of your argument boils down to denying objective facts that contradict your world view.

Muhammad Rasheed - ...said the guy that has zero idea what was in the court transcripts.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Head clerk for the State Bar of California for four years..." what did that have to do with the Michael Jackson trial?

And I tried to moonwalk when I was 14, too. So and? That means we're even.

Stop trying to bluff me with foolishness, please.

Bill Vallely - "I read the case and the report analysis."  "You're trying to bluff me, and it's pissing me off. If this is the force of your argument then you can stop now."

Ah, I see why you like using that lazy argument. It’s easy and fun. Of course, it’s also stupid and a lie, but hey, did I mention that it’s fun?

Muhammad Rasheed - Click my link, Bill. Read the contents, and come back.

"I did something involving law stuff in CA a long time ago, and knew a guy, who might've knew a guy that bought the Thriller album..." This doesn't mean anything.  Which means you're bluffing. 

Now you're going the "I know you are, but what am I?" route. Classy.

Just read the thing. It should be a quick read for you if you really were a head clerk whatssit.

Bill Vallely - @Muhammad Rasheed... I believe that I've gotten more information into the mind of a Micheal Jackson supporter. Thank you for the valuable insights, and I wish you all the happiness that you deserve.

Muhammad Rasheed - Thanks. You too.

When you get a free moment, take the time to dig into the actual facts of the trial and let go of that crazy slanderous bullshit you believe. I'm rootin' for ya. You can do it, Bill!

Bill Vallely - If Michael is innocent, why doest the Jackson family unseal the police records?

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm still trying to figure out why they gave up MJ's lion's share of the Sony Music Catalog. Asking me personal questions that amount to me needing to flex my telepathy isn't a real discussion point.

Muhammad Rasheed - Maybe they are waiting for people like you and Jamal to stop being so mob mentality/witch hunt-ish before they do so people will be calmer? This "He did it and I don't care what ANYBODY or ANYTHING says! I just BELIEVE HE DID IT!" attitude is poisonous to a civilized society. It's literally insane.

Muhammad Rasheed - You come across like you are dead set against the truth, like you actively hate it. That's the impression you give. Especially during your insulting bluffing attempts.

Bill Vallely - @Muhammad Rasheed... If there was nothing incriminating, they'd demand every know that.

Bill Vallely - "You come across like you are dead set against the truth, like you actively hate it." I'm all in favor of the truth. Open the police report and see what's actually on it. Until them, it's fair to assume the worst.

Muhammad Rasheed - You are a proud representative of the mob that literally doesn't care whether he did it or not, you just BELIEVE he's a "degenerate."

Bill Vallely - Again, I'm all in favor of the truth. Open the police report and see what's actually on it. Until them, it's fair to assume the worst.

Muhammad Rasheed - No, you're not. The fact that you've been gone all this time, conspicuously DIDN'T read the trial analysis I linked to, and came back with that SAME bullshit, proves that's not true at all.

Muhammad Rasheed - SAYING you do, and then actively demonstrating that you absolutely do NOT.

Bill Vallely - @Muhammad Rasheed... The truth lies, waiting, sealed - but the Micheal Jackson Estate™ worries that the police report would damage the franchise. And they're right - it would.

Muhammad Rasheed - The truth lies public for the whole world to see all over the Internet. Read it.

Muhammad Rasheed - So instead of just reading the trial analysis, you decide to cook up a myth-legend to believe instead. Ah.

Muhammad Rasheed - Color me surprised...

Muhammad Rasheed - Okay, I have stuff to do now. Shut the light out when you leave.

See Also:

The Michael Jackson Trial: What Went Wrong?

That Old Skin-Deep Critique

The Annual Tabloid Bamboozle

[REVIEW] Dave Chappelle's Sticks & Stones

The Perks of Whiteness