Sunday, May 6, 2018

Racist Hostility by Gaslight



CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Racist Hostility by Gaslight." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 06 May 2018. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.


Andre Ruiz Guerra - yo have some repressed issues man

Alan Groening - Yeah he does. He’s relentless no doubt about it, but yeah he does.

Muhammad Rasheed - Are you two volunteering to help end systemic racism? *thoughtful*

Muhammad Rasheed - Or are you content to just watch me in my repressed issues misery?

Johann van der Watt - Just a thought. Cartoonists should be rigid and direct regarding life and underline and portray issues of society. There is however a fine line between brilliantly creating a cartoon that echo's universally across societies and cultures and cartoons that drum up emotions from a specific viewpoint. Portraying any issue such as racism in a cartoon and perhaps also crossing the line in the cartoon is something that cartoonists should be very careful to avoid.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hi, Johann. Thanks for your message.

My art is designed to be from a specific viewpoint, one that I think is underrepresented even though it is so badly needed. I'm a firm believer in the concept "When the oppressed don't have a voice, the bad guys win." My job as an artist is to be the voice for the oppressed.

It seems like you've designed your own art to reflect a broader, more generic message that seeks to appeal to as wide an audience as possible from your 'older white male in South Africa' perspective. I wish you luck in achieving your goals.

Nicole Haggarty-Martinez - Are people really telling someone how to express themselves through their own art? We all don't have the same experiences living in the US. Best rule of thumb is if it don't apply let it fly.

Muhammad Rasheed - (when people respond that way, I always assume I'm on the right track, to be honest)

Muhammad Rasheed - "Hey! That's not how we do things here! Conform to the norm!"

Johann van der Watt - @Muhammad... I respect your great art talent and your right to be a voice for oppressed souls. It is however very unfortunate that you had to wrongly personally label me, my thoughts, perspective, vision, age, gender and ethnicity. My comments simply underlined the possibility that any artist anywhere could fall into the trap of crossing the line by how their chosen topic portraid others. Regards.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hi, Johann. When I said that you were an 'older white male,' it was based on your profile pic. If that isn't you, and it turns out you are a young Black woman, then I apologize for assuming you were presenting yourself in the photo.

When I said you were from South Africa, it wasn't to wrongly put out false info about you, but it was only because under your profile's "About You" tab I found this:



When I said it seemed that your own art was designed to reflect a universal, generic position designed to be appealing to as many people as possible, it was only because you expressed that it was a "fine line" to walk between that kind of work versus a more focused, specialized art expression, and then you warned me against the latter. Naturally I assumed you were of the high integrity "practice what you preach" sort, and was only advising me from the path of experience.

I apologize for being so very wrong on all points, and will work harder to profile you more accurately in the future. Thank you for your time.

Andre Ruiz Guerra - Bruh. I do my part by beeing cordial with peolple of any race

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh, good!

Andre Ruiz Guerra - @Muhammad... im just saying that you are sticking.to the same topic and that is not healthy

Muhammad Rasheed - lol What are you basing that on?

Andre Ruiz Guerra - @Muhammad... every piece of yours i have seen is from.the same theme

Muhammad Rasheed - That's not true. I touch on corporatism, comparative religion, Trumpamania, and various hypocrisies.

That's more than just one theme, though my favs have some crossover.

Andre Ruiz Guerra - @Muhammad... Well. Feel free to continue.

Just saying some.experimenting would help

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh, good! I will continue! Thanks.

Andre, I'm almost 50 yrs old, and have been drawing my whole life. Why do you think I haven't experimented? Hm?

I mean, it's almost as if this is some passive aggressive attempt to get me to stop making cartoons that you subjectively don't approve of or something. But naturally THAT'S not it though, amirite? Course not. That would be weird.

Andre Ruiz Guerra - Actually. For.some.reason i imagined yoj were pretty young

On the orher hand.

You are accusing me of trying to censor you.

Bro. Even if i wanted to make you stop you woukd keep it up

Just giving my piece of mind

Andre Owens - @Andre Ruiz Guerra... Then why comment if you're not trying to control the content of his art?

Kwesi Ako Kennedy - You're supposed to shoot while he's talking!

Cynthia Sonier - Actually, this is spot on.

Jeff Margeson - Though I don't necessarily agree with the message, the artwork is well done. I respect your opinion, Mr. Rasheed. Keep rocking on!

Thomas Ferranti - @Andre...Giving someone a piece of your mind doesn't mean what you think it means. Perhaps you mean you were simply sharing an opinion, sharing your thoughts. That's fine. That's "speaking your mind".

But to say that you "gave someone a piece of your mind", that means that you were very angry at them and didn't hold back anything that you wanted to say.

And, although it sounds the same, having "peace of mind" is very different and means you are happy that everything has gone well for you.

And good for you for learning a second language. I only know 1.

Alan Groening - @Thomas... personally I agree with you and Andre Ruiz Guerra, but arguing with Rash is like engaging in a hopeless duel of words... any comment... positive or negative, is met with the harshest of comments from him like "trying to control and/or censor my artwork" and other "attack" comments. Even innocent comments such as "feel free to continue" is met with repeated snarky comments "oh good, I will continue" and "I mean, it's almost as if this is some passive aggressive attempt to get me to stop making cartoons that you subjectively don't approve of or something. " from Rash.

Not only can you not engage in an argument with Rash, you cant have any reasonable sensible conversation with him either, especially if you're white, because you're automatically branded a white Supremacist and a racist.

My two cents is to just stop attempting to communicate with him, it really isnt worth it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hey, Alan... remember that time when you told me to stop illustrating my essays because you didn't think I should, and when I pointed out that I majored in Illustration in college you responded with "Fuck you then"?

#GoodTimes

Muhammad Rasheed - Just stop looking at my cartoons and trying to engage with me if you can't take it.

Alan Groening  - @Muhammad… You’re rude to other cartoonist Cafe members to the point of being obnoxious...

Nobody can engage with you, you’ve made that abundantly clear. It isn’t about us taking it it’s you that can’t take it.

(and I’ve been busy reading those Amazon reviews of your books there.... or lack of reviews.)

Thomas Ferranti  - @Alan... There is a feature I use almost daily called BLOCK. If you don't want to see or read anything from someone just block them. It's E-Z.

Muhammad Rasheed - Alan wrote: “you’re rude to other cartoonist Cafe members to the point of being obnoxious...”

1.) I post a cartoon.
2.) Someone like you suggests that I change something about the cartoon based on their world view.
3.) I acknowledge the comment, but decline to make the change based on my own world view.
4.) You get upset and start calling me names.
5.) Amused, I defend my work and my world view.
6.) You continue to call me names and interpret my responses as “rude” and “obnoxious.”

Alan wrote: “Nobody can engage with you, you’ve made that abundantly clear.”

Lots of folk engage with me. Some find themselves butthurt on the other end of the exchange because they believe they can exert some undue level of influence over me. I consider those encounters Teaching Moments™.

Alan wrote: “It isn’t about us taking it it’s you that can’t take it.”

I’ll interpret that as meaning you simply want me to believe what you want me to believe and when I refuse, you consider it “not taking it.” I don’t want your ideologies and belief systems, Alan. Peddle them to those who are actually receptive to them. Let the record show that I am not of that group. I am free.

Alan wrote: “and I’ve been busy reading those Amazon reviews of your books there.... or lack of reviews.”

That unfortunate and sad comment has the unmistakable stench of envy upon it. Are you really poking fun at me because my works aren’t famous yet? I would let that toxin go if I were you as it will not serve you. When my works do become famous, should it be God’s Will, you will be the first one shaking in rage, and likely to give your silly self a stroke. Calm down. I suggest you take Thomas’ advice and just block me since you can’t seem to control yourself.

Saturday, May 5, 2018

Punishing Cosby: Justice or Karma?


CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Punishing Cosby: Justice or Karma?" Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 06 May 2018. Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.


David Ryan
 - Why would Bill Cosby need to drug women? Being a celebrity, surely he would have women throwing themselves at him?

Muhammad Rasheed - Neither Cosby—nor any of the other social drug and alcohol users during the height of the swingers period, like Hugh Hefner—needed to drug anyone. At the time, the pills were offered for the same reasons offering people drinks during social interactions are offered: For all parties to relax into the situation. Many people also offered Quaaludes to hardcore drug users, who needed them to come down off of the intense highs of cocaine just to “mellow out” for the social interactions.

Despite the widely-accepted public opinion of the issue, Bill Cosby actually didn’t give anyone pills without their knowledge as the numerous accusers claim. The publicly documented evidence reveals that the attorney Dolores Troiani and her handlers solicited the aid of the approximately 60 accusers in order to pull off a long con grifter scheme against Bill Cosby—the targeted ‘mark’—in an effort to win a $100 million settlement from his estate.
"A long con is a scam that unfolds over several days or weeks and involves a team of swindlers, as well as props, sets, extras, costumes, and scripted lines. It aims to rob the victim of huge sums of money or valuable things, often by getting him or her to empty out banking accounts and borrow from family members." ~Amy Reading; The Mark Inside: A Perfect Swindle, a Cunning Revenge, and a Small History of the Big Con
The scandal has become a major hot topic, as several political movements have been enlisted or manipulated into aiding Troiani’s grifter team into successfully bulldozing pass any actual facts that prove Cosby innocent of the rape accusations, enabling them to influence any potential jury members into scoring them a victory with a pre-biased verdict.

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

Muhammad Rasheed - [VIDEO] TRUTH EXPOSED: Cosby Case Corruption & Chaos

The worst part about this most recent, high-profile "white women falsely accuse Black male of rape" incident is all the Black people that 'Amen' it.

There's a cross-over point between anti-Black racism and predatory misogyny that demands a deep dive into the facts so we don't become willing and uninformed accessories to a typical racism-based lynching.

Amber Manning-Lawson - Black men only care about black issues when black men are included on the list of victims. When black women are the sole target, y’all are quiet as fuck!

Amber Manning-Lawson - The issues that triggered this post were 1. the overwhelming response online from black men voicing their disappointment in the Cosby conviction. “Fuck rape victims! Cosby’s our guy! Despite 60+ accusers, witness accounts, years of documented jokes about date rape AND HIS OWN CONFESSION OUT OF HIS BLACK ASS MOUTH, I still need to see all the facts...”

Lana Andrade - I’m gonna start calling Cosby stans Puddin Poppers



Muhammad Rasheed - What's a "stans?" *thoughtful*

[tries to look it up in Urban Dictionary, but couldn't read beyond the name "eminem"]

Lana Andrade - A fan

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh.

*disappointed*

Langston Michael - Lol that's the exact Eminem reference 😄

Langston Michael - Nas even called JayZ a Stan on ether.

Jeremy Travis - So are you now content with your 'Puddin Pop' status, Muhammad?

Muhammad Rasheed - I enjoyed Cosby's older comedy albums, and I watched the Cosby Show when it was still airing, but I don't think that qualifies me as a "fan" of his.

If "fan" is being interpreted as "someone who is convinced by evidence analysis that Cosby was wrongfully convicted in a conspiracy against him" then I'll take it.

Olivia Liv Winston  - stan: an over obsessive fan (not just a fan), but idolizes and in love with their persona, not who they REALLY are. Like it's one thing to be a fan, but another layer to be a stan. As videoed:

Eminem - Stan (Long Version) ft. Dido

Lana Andrade - I mean if you wanna be a puddin popper by all means knock yourself out.

I’m done rationalizing with people who would rather believe in conspiracy theories than the overall truth.

I just pray your daughter doesn’t have to pay karmically for your “opinion”

Muhammad Rasheed - She'll be fine, Lana. This Cosby thing isn't what you think. The infamous disposition isn't a confession of rape.

Lana Andrade - I’m over it tbh

This is why black women feel they have nowhere to go

Lana Andrade - Black men would rather protect rapists than protect the victims and that’s pretty sad

Michael Clark - Superfan

Muhammad Rasheed - @Lana... In the very beginning, I also assumed the story the prosecution was carefully spoon feeding to the public (Cosby’s our guy! 60+ accusers, witness accounts, years of documented jokes about date rape AND HIS OWN CONFESSION OUT OF HIS MOUTH! -- to paraphrase Amber) should be taken at face value, and I was on that knee-jerk, uncritical band wagon, too. And then I saw there was a lot more to it, and that the analysis of the data the prosecution was presenting was heavily manipulated and false.

I'm 100% not against Black Women; I'm for the truth. Especially when the accusers are a bunch of white women (or bi-racial folk who identify as white women) reading off of that same ole racist, 'false accusation of rape' script. The nature of the case demands we dig deeper as Black people. I have zero reason to blindly trust the mainstream's presentation of anything at face value, especially something like this

But you may trust those people as you like..

Muhammad Rasheed - Bill Cosby didn't rape anybody. All of that is a big lie.

Lana Andrade - I’m really disappointed

Sacha Inchi - The Law: "Sexing drugged people is rape."

Bill Cosby: "I bought drugs to give women so I could sex them."

Cosby Stans: "He didn't rape nobody! High-tech lynching! He was trying to buy NBC! It's a media conspiracy to bring down a positive black man! Them bitches all lied to get paid! They shouldn't have been in a married man's hotel room! They took drugs because they wanted to! Why they wait 30 years to say something?"

(Did I hit all the talking points, Lana?)

Muhammad Rasheed - Sacha wrote: "They took drugs because they wanted to!"

They did take the drugs because they wanted to. That was the norm from the time period... pills were offered in the literal same way alcoholic drinks were/are offered, and for the same reasons. Since that time, the practice has become illegal -- at least involving certain types of drugs -- and the next generations have grown up seeing pills on the dating scene in a rightfully suspicious light. This here confession from a very young Cosby Verdict Juror, is pregnant with insight into the prosecution's jury selection scheme:

Bill Cosby's talk of quaaludes led to conviction, juror says | CBS News

Langston Michael - True Ludes we're used recreationally in most scenarios. They were often served in bars along with the drinks, bcoz it was that common. I included the ludes and their use during that time period too. But if you think about it, it's no different than having sex with an intoxicated woman from over consumption of alcohol. True alcohol is used socially, but it doesn't mean she's wanting sex when she gets drunk.

Muhammad Rasheed - In the Constand case against Cosby, the prosecution attempted to link the fact that Cosby had joined in on that common activity during the swinger's era to the fact that he offered the plaintiff med's for her self-confessed headache/stress when she came over for their extra-marital affair encounter to wrong doing.

It's clear to me that, as the young juror admitted, that you could only make such a leap if you were unstudied with the history, so that you would assume Cosby was a predator just because he had offered Quaaludes to people in the past for recreational usage during sex encounters and think that Constand's claims were factual.

Langston Michael - But Ludes weren't used for headaches nor "stress". They were sleeping pills. Someone figured out if you were able to fight off the feeling of sleepiness, it would immensly spike your libido. That's why it was commonly used back then. If Cos was so worried about "stress", he would've had some green around, no? With the side-effect of Ludes, It would have the same effect as Spanish fly.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's exactly my point, Langston. The prosecution's case used a very young juror's opinion of the matter to link Cosby's previous usage of recreational drugs to the fact that he gave Constand meds for mundane/normal reasons when she came over that day.

PROSECUTION: "He did THIS back then, therefore this is what THAT meant!"

JUROR: "1+1=2! GUILTY!"

The plaintiff's case was literally hinged upon the naive greenness of the carefully selected jurors as the latter admitted in the CBS News article linked above.

Langston Michael - I understand what you're saying and what prompted a guilty verdict. They managed to create an MO for Cosby bcoz there was nothing else they could really use as proof. 90% of any major case is simply persuasion. You can persuade the jury depending on how you attack the plantiff. Does it mean Cosby didn't do it tho? What if, the women didn't fight the sleepiness and passed out before reaching the freaky stage? What if Cosby actually went through with having sex with an unconscious person, and that person came to, mid coitus? I understand you may think it's a modern day lynching, or its a conspiracy bcoz he wanted to purchase NBC, but It's best to look at it from the victim's standpoint as well. It's 33 counts bruh. You mean to tell me, every chick had the same headache and stress issue that Bill needed to have Ludes on deck just in case one of his lady friends had a headache? I mean, asprin wasn't just created 30 years ago. Why wouldn't he have that on hand instead of Ludes?

Muhammad Rasheed - Okay, Langston, I see you doing two things here:

1.) You're admitting you recognize that the prosecution put together a story that they needed a jury to believe so they could score their win, and

2.) You're simultaneously using that same biased, manipulative story as the 'Source Truth' you're basing your own opinion of the case upon.

To be clear, I do not recognize the prosecution's deliberately deceitful tale--cobbled together as it were from cherry-picked facts pulled from the greater body of evidence that reveals a different narrative--as a truth at all. Cosby didn't "drug Constand for sex" when she came over. They were actively having an extra-marital affair. She came over his house for reguar affair reasons, and said that she expressed to him that she had a headache/was stressed from work, etc. He went upstairs to find some meds in his cabinets for the same reason anybody else would go find meds if someone they cared about came over and expressed the same. This absolutely was not a "I can't wait to drug her for sexual puddin' popness! Dawww!" moment. But the prosecution wants (NEEDS) you to believe that just because they have on record Cosby using drugs recreationally in the past, so that now any and all incidents of Cosby + drugs + woman = rape. This is a deliberately fabricated false narrative based on a logical fallacy.

The other women were solicited only to sway the opinion of the public so that the bias would be pre-programmed prior to jury selection. You're asking me why would they go along with that scam when the promise of sharing in a possible $100 million settlement was being dangled before them?

Langston Michael - That's not what I'm "admitting" at all. I said, I understand how a guilty person can get off, and vice versa. Not once did I say they fabricated anything. I'm saying there's over 33 counts, but you're speaking of one incident where a person's naivety could be propable cause. I'm saying you're easily assuming there's no possibility that Cosby could've done anything. I'm saying it's a possibility. Again, if a woman was unconscious during sex, then later regained consciousness mid-coitus, that is considered rape, right? Is it possible that every woman willingly accepted the ludes but not aware of it's effects? All of these are possibilities. But you're assuming Cosby had no idea about what he was doing. You're assuming there's no way he could've done it. The reason most women don't come out about sexual assault, is bcoz 97% of the time, ppl don't believe them, or somehow blame them for the heinous crime that took place. Most times, ppl don't believe the victim, bcoz the accused has a public image or status that ppl refuse to give reasonable doubt that he's squeaky clean. Using Ludes for headaches instead of Tylenol seems weird to me. Why would he have Ludes on hand for "headaches" when they were NEVER used for that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Langston wrote: “I'm saying there's over 33 counts, but you're speaking of one incident where a person's naivety could be propable cause.”

Please note that none of the ’33 counts’ were on trial here, only Constand’s case was.

Langston wrote: “I'm saying you're easily assuming there's no possibility that Cosby could've done anything.”

I’m not assuming at all. It’s what an objective analysis of the evidence around the accusations against him revealed.

Langston wrote: “I'm saying it's a possibility.”

I would agree only if there was zero record of the evidence. A minimal amount of scrutiny dissolved 60 accusations of sexual assault into 60 lies.

Langston wrote: “Again, if a woman was unconscious during sex […] All of these are possibilities.”

Meanwhile, none of that has anything to do with this case. It’s a possibility he and Camille can get pregnant with the 2nd coming of Jesus, too, I guess. How is any of that random speculation relevant?

Langston wrote: “But you're assuming Cosby had no idea about what he was doing.”

No. I said he very deliberately went to get some meds for his extra-marital affair partner’s headache – that were NOT Quaaludes btw—, that she later lied and claimed was a rape set-up.

Langston wrote: “You're assuming there's no way he could've done it.”

I’m saying he didn’t rape anybody at all.

Langston wrote: “Most times, ppl don't believe the victim, bcoz the accused has a public image or status that ppl refuse to give reasonable doubt that he's squeaky clean.”

In this situation, I don’t believe the accusers because of the documented record of what they claimed. Every single case—including the ridiculously multiple times Constand changed her story around—fell apart under a minimum amount of scrutiny, revealing they all lied. The motive for the deliberate collaborative deceit was greed.

Langston wrote: “Using Ludes for headaches instead of Tylenol seems weird to me.”

It would be weird considering no one said Quaaludes were used in the Constand case. That’s an incorrect assumption on your part.

Langston Michael - Bruh, you reaching :D

Alejandro Garcia - The job of lawyers are to persuade not manipulate. Im no court room expert but you basically sayin everyone in that court room fell for the prosecutor's manipulation and no one tried to object? Cosby's defense team must suck ass then. You armchair lawyers should have stepped in nd offered your services.

Muhammad Rasheed - Alejandro wrote: “The job of lawyers are to persuade not manipulate.”

Yes. And it is tradition for lawyers to manipulate in order to persuade.

Alejandro wrote: “Im no court room expert but you basically sayin everyone in that court room fell for the prosecutor's manipulation…”

In the judges’ court rooms and out here in the court of the public. Didn’t the prosecution’s fabricated tale work on you as well? You believe he did it and he confessed “out his black ass mouth,” too, yes? Lots of people I respect and adore—who even responded in this very thread—also fell for it, much to my own disappointment.

Alejandro wrote: “…and no one tried to object?”

The defense filed a motion demanding that Judge O’Neill recuse himself from the trial when it was revealed that he was both emotionally compromised and had a personal stake in the case he presided over (his wife Deborah is a sexual assault counselor for the University of Pennsylvania who has publicly shown support for the accusers). So yeah, the defense was definitely objecting, but since the judge was in on the conspiracy against Cosby, what else could they do?

Alejandro wrote: “Cosby's defense team must suck ass then.”

Judge O’Neill refused to recuse himself even though he was compromised and insisted he would be impartial, but he continued to make blatantly biased rulings in favor of Constand. He allowed other accusers who had nothing to do with the case and zero evidence to back their claims to cry & whimper in the courtroom in order to influence the jury. He refused to allow witness Marguerite Jackson to testify for the record that Constand had told her that she "could win money for her schooling and her business because of a relationship with a celebrity." O'Neill claimed he refused to allow it because it was "rumor and hearsay" despite allowing other accusers to admit testimony to influence the jury as proof of prior bad acts but without any convictions or evidence.

Teri Hedgepeth - Isn't the whole thing is he was drugging women without their knowledge or consent and using his clout to get away with it? Feels like victim blaming to not only put it on the african american women to have stepped up to shut him down for cheating (and raping) other people but to then add a white woman as being totally ok with it.

I usually like seeing your perspectives but, Off the mark with this one, even with the karma quip.

Muhammad Rasheed - Teri wrote: "Isn't the whole thing is he was drugging women without their knowledge or consent and using his clout to get away with it?"

Yes, that's the story the prosecution fabricated and sold to the public. It is false.

Teri Hedgepeth - @Muhammad... how do you know?

Muhammad Rasheed - The source info is in the link.

Teri Hedgepeth - it's possible some took it willingly and some were slipped the drug. But that doesn't negate the fact that using drugs or alcohol to have sex with a person is wrong. It might not have been considered illegal at the time but rape with in marriage wasn't considered a real thing until like the 60's. Plus if you want to use cultural atmosphere to excuse an act you have to consider the cultural atmosphere of the Hollywood tv industry at the time in which women were being sexually assaulted at alarmingly high numbers. And now there is a sweep of these stories coming out so it's not a persecution of a black man it's persecution of a rich and powerful man with in the industry that used his clout to prey on women who happened to be black. Cosby admitted to drugging women to have sex with them. If even 1/4 of the number of women who came out claiming he drugged them are telling the truth and even just one was drugged with out consent that makes Cosby a sexual predator and that's just not something that should be casually shrugged off.

Muhammad Rasheed - Teri wrote: "Cosby admitted to drugging women to have sex with them."

No, that's the spin that the prosecution put on their interpretation of the infamous disposition (from a case that was thrown out due to lack of evidence).

Teri Hedgepeth - you quoted it. the link in your blog to cbs is broken so maybe you're being sarcastic and it's not an actual quote, and all other links i have found say he got the drugs with intention of giving them to women to have sex with them.

why are we breaking this into so many threads?

Muhammad Rasheed - The blog post begins with the link I was referring to.

Muhammad Rasheed - The CBS News link was talking about the young juror's mindset.

Muhammad Rasheed - I fixed the link. Thanks for letting me know. :)

Muhammad Rasheed - Teri wrote: "...all other links i have found say he got the drugs with intention of giving them to women to have sex with them."

The prosecution's marketing campaign, promoting their fabricated story, was successfully sold to the public. This includes the mainstream media.

Teri Hedgepeth - Are you talking about the you tube video because so far it's reading like a conspiracy theory. This guy is putting WAY to much emphasis on the fact there are retrials when that's a really common thing especially in big headliner cases.

The comment about women having no proof is a common problem with sexual assault whether it happened last week or several years ago. Yes it needs to be taken seriously that if can be fabricated but it should also be understood that this sort of crime is often difficult to prove especially given the level of self blame, guilt and shock a victim goes through. I was sexually assaulted by a person in a position of power and even being a woman who is confident and well aware it took me a few days to work out what had happened and that i had indeed not given any miscommunications that i might have "wanted" to be treated that way. In fact i had said very clearly in previous encounters he was making me uncomfortable and the behavior needed to stop. And i wasn't drugged at the time.

Comment about judging recusing themselves. It's basically impossible for a headliner name not to carry a level of emotional connection with it especially pertaining to a sexual crime. His wife's perceptions to don't transfer to his own as we have seen in several political marriages where the husband and wife publicly have differences of opinions. And it makes sense a person who judges sex crimes might possibly be married to a person to who also works with sex crimes.

I'm about half way through but like i said this just sounds like conspiracy theory.

Teri Hedgepeth - I'm trying to find the transcript of the court case he admitted it but at best have found the quoted admittance and then the follow up question which is blocked by his lawyers. Couldn't he have just said "no"

Muhammad Rasheed - Teri wrote: “Are you talking about the you tube video…”

Yes. It’s the latest in a series that meticulously lists all the known facts of the case that an objective viewer may find the thread of truth behind the fabricated story the prosecution needs the people to believe as truth.

Teri wrote: “…because so far it's reading like a conspiracy theory.”

Are you willing to toss aside the body of information because you subjectively don’t care for the way it’s packaged? Is that really the impression you would like to leave?

Teri wrote: “This guy is putting WAY to much emphasis on the fact there are retrials when that's a really common thing especially in big headliner cases.”

There are so many retrials because they are trying to put the same multi-failed, weak case in front of just the right mix of jurors to get the verdict they want, which is clearly an inherently diabolical manipulation of the law processes. It should go without saying that just because something is commonly performed all the time, doesn’t make it right. Is it not well-known that our justice system is broken?

Teri wrote: “The comment about women having no proof is a common problem with sexual assault whether it happened last week or several years ago.”

You freely admit that the accuser had no proof for a case that was thrown out multiple times because the plaintiff couldn’t reasonably prove her claims.

Teri wrote: “Yes it needs to be taken seriously that if can be fabricated…”

And I do take it seriously. You’re literally asking me to be okay with a Black man being destroyed over the lies of a white woman.

Teri wrote: “…but it should also be understood that this sort of crime is often difficult to prove especially given the level of self blame, guilt and shock a victim goes through.”

Objection; irrelevancy. None of that has anything to do with this case.

Teri wrote: “Comment about judging recusing themselves. It's basically impossible for a headliner name not to carry a level of emotional connection with it especially pertaining to a sexual crime.”

And yet, simply NOT having a wife that was a sexual assault counselor who publicly and uncritically sided with the accusers would have been enough to meet the minimal requirement for compliance.

Teri wrote: “I'm about half way through but like i said this just sounds like conspiracy theory.”

lol So far you’ve admitted to being willing to allow a lack of proof as proof, and the usage of fabricated tales to convict someone, while dismissing the summary of the greater body of facts as “conspiracy theory.” Do you hear yourself?

Teri wrote: “I'm trying to find the transcript of the court case he admitted it…”

He didn’t admit to drugging anyone without their knowledge if that’s what you are looking for. He admitted to buying drugs to use for social recreation purposes (the same way alcohol is used), and the deceitful prosecution team needed you to make the leap that it was somehow an admitting of rape.

Teri wrote: “…but at best have found the quoted admittance…”

You found the cherry-picked quote out of context in articles of authors who decided to believe the prosecution’s fabricated tale.

Teri wrote: “…and then the follow up question which is blocked by his lawyers.”

The follow up question attempted to lead the conversation in a particular way to deceitfully influence the jury.

Teri wrote: “Couldn't he have just said ‘no.’"

Cosby described a very specific scenario and the prosecution cut it up to weaponized against him. Couldn’t they have simply told the truth and admitted they didn’t have what they wanted to have to lynch him and let him go as an innocent man?

Andy Stuart - A conspiracy theory isn't less stupid just because it aligns with your political beliefs.

Muhammad Rasheed - It seems to be your position that "all conspiracy theories are stupid." Is this accurate?

Andy Stuart - It seems to be your position that the unanimous feeling of violation of dozens of women is some disgraceful plot hatched to destroy a man for no apparent reason, and that each and every one of sixty accusers really consented then regretted it, and that it's simply impossible that he was a scumbag rapist protected by his influence.

So, no. My position is that THIS conspiracy theory is stupid.

Muhammad Rasheed - Andy wrote: “It seems to be your position that the unanimous feeling of violation of dozens of women is some disgraceful plot hatched to destroy a man for no apparent reason…”

That is inaccurate. The reason is greed.

Andy wrote: “…and that each and every one of sixty accusers really consented then regretted it…”

Also inaccurate. The shady legal team deliberately recruited as many women who had contact with Cosby over the years as they could in order to get their aid in exchange for sharing in the proposed $100 million settlement they were trying to grift.

Andy wrote: “…and that it's simply impossible that he was a scumbag rapist protected by his influence.”

In reality, not only was there zero evidence to back their claims, most of them didn’t even go so far as to say they were actually “raped” and their stories simply fell apart as typical attempts to grift a wealthy celebrity (see: Michael Jackson’s equally scumbaggish accuser families). Up till this point, Cosby was quite frankly protected by the truth. This recent conviction is the result of a relentless agenda managed by the prosecution and the judge, with unknown handlers in the background pulling the strings.

Andy wrote: “So, no. My position is that THIS conspiracy theory is stupid.”

Think so, huh? Fascinating.

B.P. Johnson - This cartoon is utterly horrible. Really bad.

Salley Forrest - Mr. Cosby is guilty. He DID that stuff. No doubt about it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Salley wrote: “Mr. Cosby is guilty. He DID that stuff.”

Andrea Constand is on record admitting that Cosby DIDN’T give her pills without her knowledge, which is what he’s being convicted of. So obviously Cosby didn’t do it, but is the victim of a political agenda.

Salley Forrest - I’m sure Mr. Cosby is pleased and grateful to have a fan like you, Mr. Rasheed

Muhammad Rasheed - This post of yours, combined with your “Mr. Cosby is guilty. He DID that stuff,” are the reason the justice system is broken.

I’m all for the #MeToo movement and for women’s rights, but not at the expense of truth and certainly not while supporting white supremacy.



See Also:

Cos: Silent Stand Up

Wilhelmina Model Paid to Destroy Bill Cosby Comes Forward

The Court of Public Gossip

HYPOCRISY - Cosby vs Sheen

A Case Study Into the Madness of Crowds & Their Popular Delusions

Punishing Cosby: Justice or Karma?

Caping for Becky

Caping for Hillary…?

Rejecting the Call

Friday, May 4, 2018

A Religious Discussion - Christian & Muslim




Gary McCoy - What did the young man who heroically stopped the shooter at the Waffle House do after being released from the hospital?

Answer: He went to church.

Liberal heads exploding in 3...2....1....

Muhammad Rasheed - ???

I don't get it.

Gary McCoy - A man of faith. Not a secularist as many liberals identify themselves. Leftists often dismiss religion and demean followers of Christ as unenlightened people. This Brave young man was being praised by some simply because of his color. Yet those same people made no mention that he is a believer.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's another one of those slippery slopes that's more bipartisan than you think.

Remember it was the church that led the fight against anti-Black systemic racism during the fight against slavery, against jim crow segregation, and to win the 1964 Civil Rights Act signing. But it was the white conservatives that fought against them and the white liberals that usurped their movement, preventing the Black community from the economic inclusion and political enfranchisement they sought and replacing it with the 'integrationist tokenism' we have today that leaves Blacks powerless in the face of the same ole societal abuses of the past.

Bret Rasch Sr - @Muhammad... This guy is a hero. He saved human lives at his expense. Why turn this into racism? He is a human being just like everyone. The only difference is that he is a good human. Try leaving the race card alone once and a while

Muhammad Rasheed - Bret, the killer he stopped initiated the incident in the fire of racism. He was clothed in the race card when he showed up at the restaurant. I didn't do it, I'm just pointing it out.

Bob Englehart - Of my liberal friends and family, most are church-going and hardly any smoke weed.

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... those white "conservatives" you mentioned were "Democrats". And they were "conservative" only in that they wanted to "conserve" their black labor force.

Muhammad Rasheed - The white conservative figure has switched parties over the years, but has remained unwavering in his fight against Black political empowerment and economic inclusion.

Gary McCoy - Ah, the old "southern strategy" that liberals try to convince themselves was real in order to assuage the guilt for decades of racism. You yourself don't have to buy into it. Bondage chosen is much worse than bondage inflicted.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's real, documented in history. Gaslighting doesn't work on me, Gary. Your will isn't strong enough.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Democrats used to be split into two groups: the anti-Civil Rights Democrats in the South (who famously called themselves "Dixiecrats" during one campaign) and the Northern Democrats. The very real "southern strategy" you mentioned began under Nixon, but was frustrated by the southern state's nigh-continuous desire to get notorious racist bulldog George Wallace to become POTUS. When Wallace declined to throw his hat into that ring for the first time during the 1980 campaign, it enabled Reagan to successfully court the Southern Democrats, who all converted to GOP-ism en masse, which was the point when the white conservative figure -- who has always fought against Black economic empowerment and political enfranchisement -- became Republican.

Mitchell Berger - And if he had gone to a mosque, might there not be McCoy brain bits scattered about the room? Wouldn't he still be a person of faith?

Gerry Harris - FYI. The guy that drove the van in Toronto and killed all of those people was a Muslim. I suspect he'd been in a Mosque.

Mitchell Berger - And it's reported that he asked the police officer who caught him to "kill me." Sounds like he's crazy, but he's not entitled to that status because he's Muslim?

Gary McCoy - @Mitchell... It's a fair bet that I'm the only one other than Muhammad on this thread who's dated a Muslim for four years. I learned a lot about the Indian culture, ate a good amount of goat curry, watched a ton of Bollywood films, and came to embrace nusrat fateh ali khan as one of my favorite artists. She was so open in accepting other faiths that she insisted on attending mass at my Catholic church with me, and even received ashes (unbeknownst to the Vatican), on Ash Wednesday.

My comment had more to do with the anti-Christian sentiment exhibited by the left. Most recently by the likes of Joy Behar. Sure, she apologized. But only after Christians raised holy hell. Pun intended.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary wrote: "Mitchell, it's a fair bet that I'm the only one other than Muhammad on this thread who's dated a Muslim for four years."

1.) I've never dated a Muslimah. My first & only woman is my wife and she's a Christian (nondenominational).

2.) Considering God forbade Muslim women from dating non-Muslim men, how do you know she was actually Muslim?

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... I'm assuming that you're referencing the Quran when you say that "God forbade Muslim women from dating non-Muslim men". But wherever it comes from, can you provide me the link to where I can read exactly what "God forbade". Did God also forbid Muslims from throwing gays from rooftops?

Yes, she is Muslim. Whether she practiced the faith completely, that's not for me to judge. She is from Goa. But to suggest that she may have been punking me for the 14 years I knew her, just because we dated, is a tad presumptuous. Is it forbidden by God for a Muslim to receive Ash Wednesday ashes on their forehead?

She chose not to live under the thumb of her parents, who did not agree with what she was doing. They didn't want her to assimilate, even though they moved her from Goa to the states at the age of 9, against her will. But she was as good and as spiritual a person as you could find.

My point was in reference to Mitchell's insinuation that I hold some sort of anti-Muslim bias, judging from my initial post.

PS. No offense meant by my assumption that you may have dated Muslim women.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary wrote: “I'm assuming that you're referencing the Quran when you say that ‘God forbade Muslim women from dating non-Muslim men.’”



Muhammad Rasheed - Gary wrote: “Did God also forbid Muslims from throwing gays from rooftops?”

No, those are local community laws in action. Other than referring to the homosexual intercourse act as “an abomination,” God doesn’t tell the believers to punish them at all actually. To me that implies God will judge them and it isn’t our place to do so. Thus the over-the-top killings committed against the people are cruel and unIslamic.

Gary wrote: “Yes, she is Muslim. Whether she practiced the faith completely, that's not for me to judge.

One of my religion-debating regulars is fascinated with the specialized material that Christian proselytizers use when ministering to the “Cultural Muslim.” This is the person that identifies as a Muslim only because it’s an ethnic tradition of his/her people and not because of a sincere and active practice in the belief system. This debate partner very stubbornly insists I’m the target audience for this stuff, despite me telling him it’s only for ‘Muslim’ who are on the fence, and grew up in doubt that the religion was for them. I am not that guy. From your descriptions of how the lady from Goa behaved, it doesn’t sound like she was really into Islam all that much.

Gary wrote: “But to suggest that she may have been punking me for the 14 years I knew her, just because we dated, is a tad presumptuous.”

God said that unbelievers only beckon the believer to the fire, and this would be especially so for a woman within a patriarchy. God said he would not accept the faith of a Muslim who transgressed and converted to another religion, and the command not to marry unbeliever men was to protect her soul from hell, not to make her pine away over a lost love or whatever. Her parents did the right thing, but it’s important to study the Word so that you will know the why behind what you instruct your kids.

Gary wrote: “Is it forbidden by God for a Muslim to receive Ash Wednesday ashes on their forehead?”

Considering the whole point of the Lent ritual is the ultimate recognition of the belief in the crucifixion of the Christ Jesus—which God definitively says did NOT happen in the Qur’an—it is clear that a Muslim engaged in rituals designed to acknowledge the uniquely Christian belief would indeed be in the wrong.

Gary wrote: “My point was in reference to Mitchell's insinuation that I hold some sort of anti-Muslim bias, judging from my initial post.”

I know. I saw it.

Gary wrote: “PS. No offense meant by my assumption that you may have dated Muslim women.”

It was a reasonable assumption on your part considering you didn’t know that about me. Careful, or we might actually stumble into some kind of friendship.

Gary McCoy - Well admittedly I did allure her to the fire. More specifically, my barbecue veggie kabobs.

Gary McCoy - [ARTICLE] The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary's article wrote: "They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences."

The problem with Johnston's and Shafer's spin of the data is that the concept of 'race' was developed specifically for economic reasons. Black's were disenfranchised politically since as far back as Reconstruction so that whites would be able to maintain an economic class divide between the two groups. So when whites vote (or voter suppress) by their economic preferences, they are absolutely voting by their racial preferences as well simultaneously.

I also find it interesting that their book "The End of Southern Exceptionalism," far from proving that 'the southern strategy' wasn't real, merely says that the point of it involved more factors than race alone from the common wisdom. That makes the title of the article you posted quite misleading, which is why you were so eager to throw it down here as some kind of "Ah HA!" card. Try harder, Gary.

Gary McCoy - @M. Rasheed wrote: "Considering the whole point of the Lent ritual is the ultimate recognition of the belief in the crucifixion of the Christ Jesus—which God definitively says did NOT happen in the Qur’an..."

I'm glad you included the "in the Qur'an" part. Because in the book written about the Man who was crucified, God clearly says it DID happen, and that Man- God's own Son, rose from the dead. But I would understand why your book wouldn't mention that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, in the Qur'an, it's the One God Himself definitively stating that the final prophet-messenger of the Hebrew nation was not divine and was not crucified.

In the NT, whose narrative are we reading who made the claims of your unique doctrine? Was it "God the father" who confirms your 'divine sonship/crucifixion' belief or some random evangelical writer who stepped far beyond the bounds set by the scripture that lay before him and you lot decided to believe it?

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... Well, I guess that I choose to believe that the Bible (which doesn't even mention your namesake at all), is the inspired word of God - written by the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ, just as you choose to believe that the Qur'an was written by the hand of God himself. Knowing His greatness, it must have been one honkin' quill pen He used.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary wrote: "(which doesn't even mention your namesake at all)"

The Christ said that he couldn't stay because it was the comforter coming after him that would finish the message for the people. Combined with God's prophecy from Deut. 18, the Christian was patiently waiting for the arrival of "that prophet" for centuries -- until they met the prophet of Islam and started having their epic debates with his followers. Then mysteriously they changed their mind about how they interpreted Deut. 18 and what the Christ meant by "the comforter."

Gary wrote: "Knowing His greatness, it must have been one honkin' quill pen He used."

lol The usual process was for God to instruct the angel, then the angel to deliver the message to the human prophet, then the human prophet to preach the message to the people, and then for the people to use some form of archival tradition to carry the message. For example, the children of Israel carried it as an oral song for millennia until they finally wrote it down about half a century before the Christ showed up. The Arabs carried the message as both memorized verses they could recite on cue, as well as a written tradition. Some people opted not to archive the books of their prophets at all, and we only know about them from brief references mentioned in the scriptures we hold dear.

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... Since you believe things regarding your holy book quite differently than I do regarding mine, it might be best to just respect each other's beliefs (much like my Muslim ex-girlfriend and I did with each other), and not do things like, take issue with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Muhammad Rasheed - I do respect your beliefs, Gary. You asked me a direct question regarding Ash Wednesday, and since the Qur'anic references l pulled from to answer happened to be the One God's message to the Christian about that subject, it was not my place to withhold the Truth when it was asked of me.

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... I respect your religion as well. Even though what you think is the truth is, in fact incorrect, as my belief, begun over 2000 years ago with the resurrection of Christ himself, has shown.

Muhammad Rasheed - Islam's strength is that it holds the revealed message as spoken by Abraham's God as its scripture--the message from the Lord to humankind in God's 'Voice' as preached by the prophet.

There's very little in the bible that matches this, and most of your book is composed of after-the-fact evangelicals telling us what the prophets said and did as filtered through the long weight of cultural memory. Equivalent works within the body of Islamic literature are known as 'hadith' and are kept carefully separate from the revealed Word of God represented by the Qur'an.

This is the core reason behind why we believe in our books differently.

Gary McCoy - What you say about Islam is merely what you believe. You have no proof of any of it. Of course, that's what any faith is. A "belief". Now, many accounts in the Bible are backed through some historical records from the time. But really, what interest would it serve for a religion that began 600 years after the birth of Christ, and separates itself from Christianity, to say ANYTHING at all, that corroborates that on which its main competitor is founded? That's be like Vito's Pizza shop opening a few years after the already successful Sgt. Pepperoni's, and saying, "Hey, everyone-- start eating at OUR place instead! Even though Sgt. Pepperoni's has much better pie than we do!"

Think about it. It's marketing 101.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary wrote: “Even though what you think is the truth is, in fact incorrect, as my belief, begun over 2000 years ago with the resurrection of Christ himself, has shown.”

Here you’re committing the logical fallacy known as “The Appeal to Antiquity,” in which you believe your [fill-in-the-blank] is correct just because it is older than whatever your opponent is arguing. FYI, logical fallacies are not how you gain points in an argument. An old untruth is still an untruth it turns out. What do you have that would be stronger than a two-thousand year old repetition of an untruth to back your claims? The One God of Abraham, within the final message of revealed scripture, point blank says that He saved the messenger from being crucified, and thus there was no resurrection event. Since we are both relying on the strength of insubstantial ‘faith’ over this matter, whose word are you believing in that trumps that of the Supreme Creator of reality Himself? Who specifically told you that Jesus had been crucified?

Gary wrote: “What you say about Islam is merely what you believe.”

Naturally there’s a big part of religious discussion that involves belief alone. I certainly have faith that the One God of Abraham whom I worship is exactly who He claims to be. I have faith that the message revealed to humankind is true, and that the prophet-messengers that received and preached it for their mission were truly anointed by the Lord thy God to do so. I have faith in the reality of the unseen spirit, and in the inevitability of the Day of Judgment.

Gary wrote: “You have no proof of any of it.”

But not every aspect of religion, particularly Abrahamic Religion, is confined to matters of faith alone. The history of sacred scriptural literature—the archival record of how humans have physically recorded the revealed message of God—is very much a part of the real world and can be tracked. Its data can be compiled, measured and analyzed, so that the big picture mosaic of the enduring scripture of the ages preached from Adam the patriarch to Muhammad the unlettered Arab prophet (May the Peace of the One God be upon them all!) can be studied by all those who believe and earnestly seek Truth. Such study also reveals a universal principle… that Truth stands out clear from error. So when the history of the message of the One God demonstrates an awe-inspiring consistency in which the One God has continuously demanded that His followers worship Him and Him alone, it stands out as odd indeed when all of a sudden a group of after-the-fact writer-evangelicals from two millennia ago make the claim that, oh, God actually wants you to worship one of the prophet-messengers from the line of Isaac as an equal aspect of the divine entity. God is not the author of confusion, and in fact, part of the beauty of the message is in its consistency throughout the ages. When the final message of the One God proclaims to be the uncompromising monotheism of Abraham the true in faith—who gave neither sons nor partners to the One God—the ring of a return to the consistent Truth was clear as a bell.

Far from only having “merely what I believe” in what I hold, I also have the record of scripture itself and the tools of logic & reason to use with my skills of scriptural analysis. These are not inconsiderable.

Gary wrote: “Think about it. It's marketing 101.”

The prophet-messengers didn’t compete against each other, since they all preached the same message and performed in the same job function: to instruct the people in scripture and wisdom. Often their job involved correcting the people after they had strayed for a generation or so. In this they would confirm and fulfill that which the people did that was right, and forbid them continue the error. Hence why there are many portions of the Qur'an in which the One God speaks directly to the Jews and the Christians.

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... We're not getting any closer to a Kumbaya moment when you rant breathlessly to proselytize for your particular faith. As eloquent as you are. The bottom line is you have nothing of proof to substantiate what you say, and that includes your "tools of logic and reason". In fact, the latter are more of an admission on your part that it still comes down to what you simply believe. No proven facts at all.

And I never used the fact that Christianity is older than Islam as something to validate its truthfulness over your faith. It was merely said in the context of my explaining why your faith obviously would deny the fact of Jesus Christ's Resurrection.

You say, "whose word are you believing in that trumps that of the Supreme Creator of reality Himself? Who specifically told you that Jesus had been crucified?"

For just one answer:
Peter does something similar with Psalm 16:8 and the foretold resurrection of the Nazarene: Therefore, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne, he saw beforehand and spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in Ha'des nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses.
(Acts 2:30-32 NWT)


Now, who specifically told you that Muhammad was God's prophet, other than this angel that no one saw. Oh, but people wrote about it! I see, just as people wrote about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I guess I'll go on believing the Truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and you can keep on believing that God hired rent-an-angel to pen your holy book. But please stop wasting my time and yours with the folly of trying to convert me.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol I wasn't proselytizing, I was just answering your questions and explaining the position my religion actually takes regarding certain statements I've made. I used the thread as a teaching moment, specifically since I thought your Ash Wednesday question was inherently fun as an opportunity to show off my comparative religion skill and worthy of addressing. Please understand that this wasn't intended as an attack against you and your faith; I was only explaining in more detail what the Qur'an's position is and how it regards the previous scripture in the series of the One God's revelation. I'm already familiar with the Christianity practitioner's "false prophet" talk regarding Islam's founder, so there's no new info for me there, especially since you've revealed you don't know enough about Islam overall to have a strong argument about it anyway.

Okay, so when I asked you who specifically told you that Jesus had been crucified, you quoted Acts 2, which was arguably written by "Luke." According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 7), Luke never included himself in the group that claimed to be eyewitnesses to the central Christian doctrinal event, (so he's writing from hearsay) versus the fact that God is the Ultimate Eye Witness in any and every event. You're putting the word of this figure against the Word of Abraham's God who revealed in the Qur'an that He did indeed aid the Christ when the latter called out for help against his enemies. Do you think it is reasonable that I accept the word of this "Luke" over that of the omniscient One God who created us all and will Judge us on the Last Day?

In answer to your own question, it is the One God of Abraham, Lord of all the worlds, who confirms again and again throughout His final revelation that Muhammad ibn Abdullah of Mecca was His prophet-messenger. God, of course, is the Source and the Ultimate Authority, so when comparing the strength of our two holy books within a matter of faith, I think we can both agree that an endorsement from God Himself trumps that of a "Luke." I make this point only as a philosophical argument and not as an attempt to convert you, so you may relax.


See Also

Beam Assisted Hypocrisy

A Religious Discussion - Atheist & Muslim

Thursday, May 3, 2018

GOP Tough Till They Cry




Gary McCoy -



Muhammad Rasheed -



Gary McCoy -



Muhammad Rasheed - Did you notice that my image post wasn't a fabricated propaganda poster but just a photograph of the same people butthurt over Wolfe's stingie-ouchie jokes?

Muhammad Rasheed - I must admit that the GOP does come up with the best slogans. :)

Gary McCoy - You got a photo of two people wearing t-shirts, and that's supposed to represent the people on the right and left who are in agreement that Michelle Wolf's "jokes", including laughing about killing an unborn baby?

Gary McCoy - Fabricated propaganda poster? You mean like fabricated t-shirts? What isn't fabricated?

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm pointing out that the right responded with "Fuck your feelings!" while they were strutting around having their way, but started crying like butthurt babies when a comedian roasted them during a White House dinner established for that purpose.

That's pretty typical.

Muhammad Rasheed - I posted a casual photo from a Trump campaign event versus you posting a designer's photoshop creation made to force a political view. Why do you think your post made the stronger point?

Gary McCoy - Of course it's photoshopped. You mean Bush doesn't really have a Hitler mustache?? It's created, just like the t-shirts were created by the guy who silk screened them. What are you missing here? So you're still insisting that those two people are ALL Trump supporters? Maybe you missed all the mainstream media people on the left Monday who were expressing shock at how offensive miss wolf was.

Gary McCoy - Those poor butt hurt republicans....



Muhammad Rasheed - So are you saying you strongly condemn the "Fuck your feelings!" message from this proud Trump campaign event photo, and personally never partnered with it at all from your own very public, hypermasculine, white conservative "Fuck your feelings, libtards!" position? *thoughtful*

Gary McCoy - I don't engage in that kind of discourse on social media. Engaged in it when I was in bars before I got married and had a family to whom I was responsible. Should I associate you with antifa and all the rioting lefties out there?

Muhammad Rasheed - So are you saying I CAN'T find a bunch of cartoons drawn in these 'family man days' by Gary McCoy with an obvious "Fuck your feelings, snowflake libtards!" message in them? *thoughtful*

Gary McCoy - You could find my cartoons and ascribe any far-fetched notion You may wish I suppose. That doesn't necessarily mean that my cartoons automatically become what you perceive them to be.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm learning a lot in this thread. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - I think you missed your true calling as a defense attorney.

Muhammad Rasheed - It does appear as if you've admitted that you absolutely partner with the "Fuck your feelings, snowflake libtards!" Trump message, but have learned to cover it up since you've become a family man.

Gary McCoy - Not necessarily. I think that sentiment a lot in my mind. It didn't just come into being with Trump. There are a lot of people in society who's feeling deserve being given the proverbial purple nurple. Being a family man just means I have to pick my real life battles more wisely. But I'm always able to craft a written expression of what may be much less diplomatic if portrayed through physical means.

Muhammad Rasheed - Maybe you could practice law WHILE cartooning...?

Gary McCoy - Keep me in your Rolodex should you find yourself on the wrong side of the law.

Muhammad Rasheed - According to the law, I'm on the wrong side by default. Maybe I should keep a 1/8 sized clone of you in my briefcase...

Gary McCoy - I should mention, my rate is a lot higher for Perpetual troublemakers like yourself.

Muhammad Rasheed - stupid racism. :(

#WhiteCartoonistsOnCode

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Interviewed by a Vampyr


Dem Vampyr - I first was impressed with your interaction, knowledge and poise on my FB friend's page and wanted to learn more about you. I find myself disagreeing with most of your viewpoints but willing to listen and learn myself. I look forward to the enlightenment and wanted to send this note just to say I appreciate the way you interact and handle diverse opinion....at the end of the day, we are all equal human beings - that is the bottom line. Trying to get us all treated the same way is the challenge.

...you and I are very likely completely different in so many ways but I feel we do share one essential element that to me is 'glue'....and that is to treat everyone with the same respect...how we get there is the challenge but I am open to all views.....

M. Rasheed - Thanks for reaching out. This was a cool post, and I appreciate the heartfelt civility.

Dem Vampyr - Thanks for accepting my friend request and have a good weekend....I am off to the Carpathians

M. Rasheed - Oh, cool! Have fun. I look forward to interacting with you in the future. Take care.

Dem Vampyr - I can feel the passion in your messaging but strongly feel in order to truly create change (even if one person at a time) the races (and I don't even like referring to humans with the term 'race'...and that is not meant to deny the pride we all should have in our ancestry but using 'race' as if we are not unified by our commonality) need to find acceptability with what is happening and what should be done to combat and overcome inequalities. Unfortunately I feel 'people of color' ('blacks') have to be the 'better' person and slowly enlighten versus a hard core push. Over time I can discuss this more but right now it's imperative you understand my objectives and who I am (a middle aged white guy) who 'has wanted to' and 'still wants to' help this cause. So I will tell you about myself and want you to challenge me so you can hopefully eventually trust me and view my responses with sincerity and not blanket rejection. We want the same 'end goal'....

M. Rasheed - Dem wrote: "I can feel the passion in your messaging but strongly feel in order to truly create change [...] I feel 'people of color' ('blacks') have to be the 'better' person and slowly enlighten versus a hard core push."

I have the rudimentary freedoms I currently hold because of the rivers of blood spilled during the Civil War.

It seems pretty clear that whites will not give up their anti-Black wealth generating systems by my just trying to reason with them. It didn't work before, and the brave men & women of the 19th century were far more eloquent than I.

Dem Vampyr - I don't believe injustices can be 'exposed and overcome' with force and especially with just one side. To me, the best way to 'start' to change the 'bad' whites with the 'good' whites (or at the very least a partnership of 'good' whites and 'good' blacks). And hopefully taking no offense, I would like to simply refer to our races as blacks and whites for our conversations.

M. Rasheed - You don't believe that the battles represented by the Civil War that led directly to the long-sought after goal of releasing the oppressed Black people from chattel bondage could be considered "force?"

Dem Vampyr - That was then...this is now. Force will not work today. And note, the efforts of the Civil War were led by a white - President Lincoln. To bring about change today the movement also has to be co-lead by a white....and a beloved one with established support from all races.

Obama was elected because he was the first half-white President...see what I did there (understand your objective and attack unconventionally)

.....we want our targets to not respond with FU but with Hmmmmm. Anyway, have a good day as I am off to the race (4 kids).

M. Rasheed - Force will work because it's the only thing that the bullying oppressor figure understands. It also happens to have a scriptural precedent as the prophets of the One God of Abraham were often required to draw swords to release the oppressed from the barbarity of unreasonable men. You can tell that whites fear a Civil War sequel because of their nigh-continuous advice that 'force won't work' and Blacks should just shed themselves of their resentments and forgive whites whenever they get all lynchy ("I CAN breathe.") To me, that means whites wish for the unlimited freedom to abuse Blacks at will, and for Blacks to allow it to happen. Under such conditions my people will never be fully free, but will in fact be returned to the chains of chattel.

Lincoln didn't lead from the battle field, and it isn't insignificant that he was the first POTUS killed during his tenor.

Dem Vampyr - respectfully disagree....you will never see in your lifetime what you wish (and that is not force but the end result - acceptable equality). You can only hope your grandchildren see a better day (as your grandparents now see you). Racism (on both sides - yes, there are those that hates Whites just because of their skin color) will never stop but the aspiration is to make that mindset such a discouraged mentality that is in the closet. It must happen with the mind - not muscle.

M. Rasheed - The slave owners attempted to over-step their bounds based on the same greed that fuels them today, Lincoln refused to allow it, and then we had war. Since the greed of the president's enemies was intimately hinged upon the slave economy itself, Lincoln played the ultimate trump card to end the conflict.

Dem Vampyr - I also think there was a human element involved - like we are all human beings.....

M. Rasheed - Obama was elected because in his intelligence, class and poise, he represented the literal opposite of what the uncouth previous POTUS displayed. The people believed in his ability to fix the nationwide damage caused during the previous administration.

My "target" is my own people as I long for them to be free from this subjugated/exploited state that they may be politically and economically empowered and included in the mainstream, and not just 'assimilated integrationalist tokens' supporting white-owned institutions.

Dem wrote: "you will never see in your lifetime what you wish"

People said I would never see a Black President of the USA in my lifetime, too. 😉

Dem wrote: "Racism (on both sides... yes, there are those that hates Whites just because of their skin color)"

Racism has nothing to do with "skin color" and everything to do with the collective ethic groups of Europe conspiring across class lines to establish an economic aristocracy at the expense of the descendants of African peoples. The "skin color/physical phenotype" talk was just the marketing campaign.

Dem wrote: "I also think there was a human element involved"

Agreed. The Blacks insisted they were fully human under God's Law while the greedy whites insisted their prey were but exploitable property.

Dem Vampyr - Wow… a lot to digest but I like it and appreciate you spending the time to respond. Before we can agree on a methodology to collectively pursue 'equality' we need to fully understand where the other's motivations lie. I want you to understand me and have confidence that I am sincere and also outraged and disgusted. You can enlighten me....however I can enlighten you. We come from very different backgrounds. I totally acknowledge and respect your 'outlook'...I don't need to care - but I do and many do - why? because it is wrong and how we treat each other is a reflection of ourselves. I believe if Obama did not have a white parent he might not have been elected (but I'm glad he did and that he was elected). You have seen a black President elected (by many whites - of whom I would hope are not viewed as racists)...I also believe we will see more Presidents of color and women (in the next 25 years). I also think the first female President will be a woman of color (not Oprah or Michelle Obama). I also do feel skin color is relate to racism (read "Black like me"). It's unfortunate but true. Anyway, thanks for your candid feedback of which there will be more to follow. Race relations is something I've been passionate about for decades - to my dismay, I feel the situation has gotten worse and not better over the last decade....

M. Rasheed - Dem wrote: “Before we can agree on a methodology to collectively pursue 'equality' we need to fully understand where the other's motivations lie.”

To be honest, that sounds like the kind of talk that actually prevents work from being done. Typically it’s the background noise behind endless meetings, jockeying for positions of power, and mismanaged resources. It seems significantly more fruitful for those on the ‘Black-hand side’ of the fight to drive their lane (with its already agreed upon methodology), while the ‘white-hand side’ provides funds/material resources to the Blacks where they are needed, as they continue to figure out what methodology they should use to convince their fellow whites that political-economic equality between the races will make America truly great.

Dem wrote: “I believe if Obama did not have a white parent he might not have been elected…”

I think it was Obama’s believability in genuinely seeing the good in the white community and believing in his heart that they could rise to the highest ideals of the nation when it came to finally ending racism that was a huge portion of his mainstream appeal. I don’t think he could have cultivated that attitude if he wasn’t raised by a Caucasian family who not only loved him, but they never talked bad about Black people in his presence.

Dem wrote: “(by many whites - of whom I would hope are not viewed as racists)”

They had their own reasons for voting for him. Many of them performed a dramatic heel turn when Bernie Sanders didn’t get the DNC nod and voted for the VERY racist Don Trump out of spite. That’s not something a non-racist friend would do, Dem.

Dem wrote: “I also do feel skin color is relate to racism (read ‘Black like me’).”

It’s related only as a shallow physical marker to identify the group targeted for exploitation/plundering. Any talk of addressing racism as a “skin color issue" without the primary root cause economic component is all ‘smoke & mirrors’ rhetoric (and probably a racist grifter scheme designed to plunder Blacks even more and guard the system).

Dem wrote: “It's unfortunate but true.”

You want me to believe your prophecies of the future are “truths?” Do you perform this way in front of other white people or just for Blacks whose confidence you are trying to win? ;) lol

A self-confessed ‘middle-aged white guy’ confidently proclaiming that what he believes about the unseen future is factual data that I should just believe as truth because he proclaimed it to be so, is not how you will win my trust, Dem. Just the opposite in fact. lol Did you forget that you initiated this discussion by pointing out you disagree with most of my viewpoints and we are very different in many ways? Tell me, were you surprised when Obama was elected in 2008?

Dem wrote: “to my dismay, I feel the situation has gotten worse and not better over the last decade...”

It’s the exact same. What you see is the combination of fear that the first Black POTUS would release the Black citizens from the effects of centuries of systemic racism and politically-economically elevate them equal to whites during his terms, plus the desperation of forcing in a dedicated “anti-Obama” candidate who would effectively reverse the policies the Black POTUS was available to put in place. Fear and rage is what you are seeing in the populace, coming from the same well it oozed from during Reconstruction and for the same reasons. They thought their anti-Black racist system was secure and suddenly it was under threat. That didn’t make the situation worse, it just made those who benefited from and maintained the situation louder.

Dem Vampyr - I am smiling. Not sarcastically but impressed by your passion. There's so much to digest and respond to that it's overwhelming...and honestly I don't want to perpetuate a defend this/defend that situation. What I state is my opinion - you can accept it or not just as I can accept what anyone else has to say (but I always listen, consider and respect others opinions as long as they don't harm anyone). Question for you...if you could have an audience with any one person currently alive and make one statement in less than 100 words who would it be, what would you say and what would you want to see occur as a result of your actions? No rush on this and give this serious thought (I'll share this with my oldest son who is a high school teacher). To me (see how I did the 'my opinion thing') the future and key to 'real' change is our youth and the responsibility of every parent to teach their children respect, decency, values, equality, spirituality, humility, generosity, social awareness, pride and to educate them and most importantly teach them to laugh and love.

M. Rasheed - An interesting question, but there is no single individual that can help solve this issue. What’s needed is an audience of a dedicated and significant percentage of the Black community who would be willing to listen to a persuasive argument capable of swaying them into demonstrating a Black Economic Boycott of sufficient force to make the white elite want to negotiate an end to systemic racism. Racism is economic in nature, and to cure it will also require a manipulation of the economy. Withdrawing their dollar will cause the entire business class to freak out and they would be willing to talk.

At that point, I would want to see real long-term and permanent progress occur in that regard. Realistically, it might even start off promising – in a perfect imitation of the 1% acting as if they were really willing to give up their anti-Black gravy train in exchange for morality, fairness and common decency – but to actually pull it off would effectively be a declaration of war, and the Black community would have to defend themselves to the death from a literal attempt to return them to chattel slavery.

Dem Vampyr - I don't disagree with your response but would add that to make it more effective there should be a white person (and people of all races) equaling the numbers of boycotting blacks....to me, the best way to see change is through unification for a cause and not create a 'race war' us/them mentality. I would presume you disagree however I do feel we would agree on the ultimate objective - just not align on how to get there.

M. Rasheed - Dem, it's already a race war... "us vs them" mentality. It's the foundational philosophy driving our nation's mainstream culture. The white aristocracy wants for Blacks to simply accept it, and get furious at the suggestion that we are free of that oppression. That's definitely "us vs them." What else would it be?

The problem comes from pretending Blacks are the problem when whites act that way.

Dem Vampyr - The white aristocracy cannot handle a unified effort of all races against injustice. I am willing to listen, understand, learn, agree and act. I am convinced many of my open minded friends (all races) will as well. I firmly believe there is good in all humans and evil in all. Skin color or race or religion or gender or any attribute does not define that.

M. Rasheed - I agree with your logic that toppling the idol of racism will happen much faster if the economic boycott I envision involved the effort of more than the Black peoples alone. Again though, my focus would be that my own people did their part, while the others can help (or not help) as they are moved to – I most certainly would not be interested in Black activist efforts being held up while they waited for your group to finish determining what methodology they wanted to use or whatever. That sounds like the recipe for certain failure, that should they manage to get their act together would most likely repeat the infuriating model of starting out successfully, and then becoming derailed and sabotaged as whites sought to center themselves in the struggle, then succumb to greed and end up joining with the enemy again in a perfect reenactment of the final scene in Orwell's Animal Farm. No, thanks. lol

To remove the temptations of treachery, I think it best that Blacks orchestrate their side of the war from their end, while other [initially] well-meaning groups work it from their end, and let there be Peace on the side of light.

Dem Vampyr - We will continue this discussion....I am middle class and struggle along with my friends of all colors. We care about the ones we love and to provide for them. We strive for fairness for all and are as outraged at any injustice as people of all colors. These are tenuous times and I feel unification for a common cause will be heard louder than if a cause by a certain group that I am concerned will be misinterpreted as about race and not injustice. To me, the key is to understand the injustice and accept it....then enlighten others until it is widely accepted. In my opinion, to think people (white people...and does this include Asians and Hispanics, etc) will not be open minded is closed minded.

M. Rasheed - I understand your point, and I empathize with your appeal for an open-minded fairness from my argument's point-of-view. As l study the trends of history and note the embarrassing number of cyclic betrayals from what seemed to initially be sympathetic and well-meaning white allies, it seems obvious to me that the burden of proving trust is solely in your lane and by rights it should be very, very difficult to win.

As a representative of the Black American, who is still struggling to achieve full civil rights and political-economic inclusion in the land of my birth, l am not in the position to generously wave aside a reasonable, healthy skepticism as to whether whites are REEEEEALLY serious about helping or not. For those who are serious, it's best that they do their part of the work from within their Whitopia neighborhoods for the sake of my people’s protection.

M. Rasheed - Are you familiar with this lady’s work?

Finding Myself in the Story of Race | Debby Irving

You seem to be the intended audience for her message...

Dem Vampyr - I'll check out the link