What a got damn shitshow. [warning politics]

[headmount]

I think the only good thing to come out of this thread (for me anyway) is that Kinky Friedman quote. I'm going to have to remember that one. I've always felt that a persons dog is a window into their soul....I wouldn't be surprised to find out that if Trump had a dog that it didn't like him.

I knew an architect who said she was meeting a new potential client.  I told her the guy had a horrible reputation for screwing everyone he did business with, and that he was the type of guy who'd kick his own dog.  She ignored me, then said when she met with him, his dog came out and he actually did kick his own dog.  Then she did some work that ended in a lawsuit.


Here's George W. Bush talking about his dog and Putin's: 

Great understated line by W at the end.  "Anybody who says their dog is bigger, stronger and faster than your dog, is an 'interesting character' which I assumed was W's euphemism for he's an asshole.  And... who knew we'd be talking about W as a voice of reason.

[pdxmike]

I think the only good thing to come out of this thread (for me anyway) is that Kinky Friedman quote. I'm going to have to remember that one. I've always felt that a persons dog is a window into their soul....I wouldn't be surprised to find out that if Trump had a dog that it didn't like him.

I knew an architect who said she was meeting a new potential client.  I told her the guy had a horrible reputation for screwing everyone he did business with, and that he was the type of guy who'd kick his own dog.  She ignored me, then said when she met with him, his dog came out and he actually did kick his own dog.  Then she did some work that ended in a lawsuit.


Here's George W. Bush talking about his dog and Putin's: 

Great understated line by W at the end.  "Anybody who says their dog is bigger, stronger and faster than your dog, is an 'interesting character' which I assumed was W's euphemism for he's an asshole.  And... who knew we'd be talking about W as a voice of reason.

And of all the presidents, who'd have thought it would be him that took up painting?  He's been looking good with that (raising money for veterans) and for being friends with Michelle Obama also.  Also saw a video of him getting roasted at a press dinner and looking like he was enjoying it.  I heard he also loved people who impersonated him.  Some other famous person flubbed a sentence, and he said, "Hey, that one was mine!"  This doesn't erase his faults as a president, but his self-deprecating humor is refreshing.


I had a client who hated that my German Shepherd (not the current one) would totally ignore his commands, even though she understood them perfectly.  So he got on the floor and climbed into her crate, even though he was about 6'-5", and told her he was doing it "just to show you I can".   He dared her to get him out, but she rolled her eyes at him.  Then he told her he was going to get a dog bigger than her, and went out and bought two mastiffs.  And then told her he did.

[PonoBill]

Wjr. is probably an underrated president. I suspect that history will be kinder to him than we are. I understand it's unpopular to talk about Muslims as if they were the enemy. But read some Asian/mid east history before you judge that. You don't need to pick any particular period--any stretch of a couple hundred years will do. It's not a religion of tolerance or forgiveness. Spain in the 15th century. Anywhere in the Mideast for the last 1700 years. Lots of heads rolling. Isis is a bunch of wimps. They haven't chopped any children yet.

We apply 20th century values to a situation that looks a lot like the 17th century with a bit of the 3rd mixed in for fun. Unrealistic.

This doesn't have anything to do with Trump, who I suspect will ignore the Mideast. Nothing there for him. You might think that's good. I doubt it will improve the planet and/or our prospects for a civilized world.

[tautologies]

This doesn't have anything to do with Trump, who I suspect will ignore the Mideast. Nothing there for him. You might think that's good. I doubt it will improve the planet and/or our prospects for a civilized world.

You do not get a lot of resistance for me. I don't like any form of religion that is anything but private.

Trump did want to pillage the oil. And might be looking for another chance to do so.
"The old expression, "to the victor belong the spoils" -- you remember. I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said, in addition to that, keep the oil."

https://www.c-span.org/video/?422418-1/president-trump-tells-cia-get-rid-isis

[deepmud]

Wjr. is probably an underrated president. I suspect that history will be kinder to him than we are. I understand it's unpopular to talk about Muslims as if they were the enemy. But read some Asian/mid east history before you judge that. You don't need to pick any particular period--any stretch of a couple hundred years will do. It's not a religion of tolerance or forgiveness. Spain in the 15th century. Anywhere in the Mideast for the last 1700 years. Lots of heads rolling. Isis is a bunch of wimps. They haven't chopped any children yet.

We apply 20th century values to a situation that looks a lot like the 17th century with a bit of the 3rd mixed in for fun. Unrealistic.

This doesn't have anything to do with Trump, who I suspect will ignore the Mideast. Nothing there for him. You might think that's good. I doubt it will improve the planet and/or our prospects for a civilized world.

Lumping the hundreds of millions of non-violent Muslims with the Isis(or worse) is lazy and counter productive. Acting as if it was "Us against the Muslims" just raises the testosterone of the young idiots who see themselves in a Red Dawn movie with invading Infidels instead of Commies (a movie we helped them play out when Russia was in Afganistan) -  And the bastards do chop children, already. Acknowledging those who are not violent doesn't mean you ignore those who are. If they were all like that....we'd already be f*cked. Why lump those who are not in that mindset with those who are?

[Weasels wake]

I think the only good thing to come out of this thread (for me anyway) is that Kinky Friedman quote. I'm going to have to remember that one. I've always felt that a persons dog is a window into their soul....I wouldn't be surprised to find out that if Trump had a dog that it didn't like him.

I knew an architect who said she was meeting a new potential client.  I told her the guy had a horrible reputation for screwing everyone he did business with, and that he was the type of guy who'd kick his own dog.  She ignored me, then said when she met with him, his dog came out and he actually did kick his own dog.  Then she did some work that ended in a lawsuit.


Here's George W. Bush talking about his dog and Putin's: 

Great understated line by W at the end.  "Anybody who says their dog is bigger, stronger and faster than your dog, is an 'interesting character' which I assumed was W's euphemism for he's an asshole.  And... who knew we'd be talking about W as a voice of reason.

Heh, not going to get any argument out of me, I did reluctantly vote for him, but now, not only was he underrated, he continues to show how an ex-president is supposed to act.  He gets props from me for that.  I like some of the formal traditions, that being one of them, don't meddle in the successor's business.

[PonoBill]

Wjr. is probably an underrated president. I suspect that history will be kinder to him than we are. I understand it's unpopular to talk about Muslims as if they were the enemy. But read some Asian/mid east history before you judge that. You don't need to pick any particular period--any stretch of a couple hundred years will do. It's not a religion of tolerance or forgiveness. Spain in the 15th century. Anywhere in the Mideast for the last 1700 years. Lots of heads rolling. Isis is a bunch of wimps. They haven't chopped any children yet.

We apply 20th century values to a situation that looks a lot like the 17th century with a bit of the 3rd mixed in for fun. Unrealistic.

This doesn't have anything to do with Trump, who I suspect will ignore the Mideast. Nothing there for him. You might think that's good. I doubt it will improve the planet and/or our prospects for a civilized world.

Lumping the hundreds of millions of non-violent Muslims with the Isis(or worse) is lazy and counter productive. Acting as if it was "Us against the Muslims" just raises the testosterone of the young idiots who see themselves in a Red Dawn movie with invading Infidels instead of Commies (a movie we helped them play out when Russia was in Afganistan) -  And the bastards do chop children, already. Acknowledging those who are not violent doesn't mean you ignore those who are. If they were all like that....we'd already be f*cked. Why lump those who are not in that mindset with those who are?

I'm talking about the history of Islam. Read some, then come back and explain how I'm being lazy. If you don't have any understanding of that history, and how Islam spread, then how can you tell me I'm wrong?

I'm not just talking about a religion, it's a culture and a set of political entities, though you would be hard pressed to find a religion so steeped in violence and intolerance from its very beginning. Christianity took quite a while to start killing unbelievers. Read a bit about what happened after Mohammed's death, how the Shi'a and Sunni evolved and why.  You'll find many Muslim scholars who say exactly the same thing--not as a condemnation of their religion, but as a demand that they reconcile their faith with the rest of the world. There are good reasons why Muslims are interested in reformation of how their culture works--if only so they might stop butchering each other. You're telling me that what I'm saying is ignorant, but I don't see anything in what you've written that shows you have any understanding of the issues, the religion, the culture, or how western society should interact with it beyond some popular emptyheaded ideas that the current situation is benign because there are some secular Muslims.

[yugi]

…
 I understand it's unpopular to talk about Muslims as if they were the enemy. But read some Asian/mid east history before you judge that. You don't need to pick any particular period--any stretch of a couple hundred years will do. It's not a religion of tolerance or forgiveness. Spain in the 15th century. Anywhere in the Mideast for the last 1700 years. Lots of heads rolling. Isis is a bunch of wimps. They haven't chopped any children yet.

…

…
 Acting as if it was "Us against the Muslims" just raises the testosterone of the young idiots who see themselves in a Red Dawn movie with invading Infidels instead of Commies (a movie we helped them play out when Russia was in Afganistan) - 
 …
 

I'm talking about the history of Islam. Read some, then come back and explain how I'm being lazy. If you don't have any understanding of that history, and how Islam spread, then how can you tell me I'm wrong?

…

I no scholar in the matter, and certainly among scholars there are varied opinions. I do have some understanding of the region, the culture and know enough of the religion to understand that it comes in many flavors and is practiced very differently by different groups. I know enough to assure you that your statement is not one that is representative of many scholars and historians.

As they say: that’s too wide a brush stroke.

Just what are you reading? You’re smart guy and you read a lot. Surely you’d find it interesting to hear different sides of a story to form you own opinion. I always am.

I don’t think all scholars agree that the military expansion of the Arab conquests were purely motivated by Islam. I’ve heard some say the wars and the spread of the religion were separate. Whatever. I’m curious to read what you’ve got your hands on. I’m even more curious to learn more how the French and British meddling has caused stricter interpretations of “laws” and created extreme factions.

The classic “trade-offs” of empires. I liked the series The Wrath of the Khans [that I learned about here]. As an intro Dan Carlin does a good discussion of empire expansion and conquests over the ages. Creative destruction. It’s in the first 20 mins.

Speaking of the Mongols, and their certainly very violent conquests, don’t you find the religious tolerance they practiced very interesting? How about the religious tolerance practiced in the Ottoman Empire. Just look at the cohabitation of the religions in Jerusalem during that period.

Isn’t 15th century Spain you mention when the Jews in Spain fled the Spanish Inquisition to go to Ottoman Constantinople? I thought Spain had  a degree of religious tolerance for 100’s of years up until then? La Convivencia. I know, I know, hardly perfect but what came after was certainly zero religious tolerance.

I’m with this guy on that all major religious traditions carry the same message of love, compassion, tolerance, contentment.   
   
   
The rest is just mankind perverting religions for their purposes. You’d hardly expect someone to use the Ku Klux Klan terrorist activities as a shining example of Christianity. You’d be surprised the role of the Buddists in the Sri Lankan Civil War. Not at all like Tibetan Buddists. Etc etc…

I believe it’s a people thing in the end. Bad Hombres. Leave religion out of those things. If you look deeper it always is other uglier motivations. Money, greed, power.   

[PonoBill]

Actually, we're in nearly complete agreement Yugi. I never suggested it was a simple thing, and to whatever degree one might think I'm singling out Islam as being uniquely heinous--that's just me attempting to be brief. My original statement was intended to defend to some minor degree Bush Junior's interference in the Mideast as the collision of cultures that is to some degree necessary. What the interference should be remains an open question. But there's no opportunity for a facile dismissal that it's just about the oil. There's probably more than half a million dead in Syria right now. The Russians will always back any secular government against a Muslim one anywhere close to their borders. The reasons are historic, some recent, some ancient. 

I think when some people hear that the aim of one or another Islamic force is to "restore the caliphate" that they are speaking of a unified Mideast. It's hardly that. The land area involved in the Islamic conquests was about the size of the Russian Federation. Yeah, I know we're not talking about swords and horses now, but scope of the ambition is not what is commonly understood.

And there is no debating that Islam has its roots in violent conflict. Mohammed and his followers fought wars of conquest, aimed at converting or extinguishing the pagans. The Quran has many verses, created extemporaneously to deal with division of spoils, and prosecuting holy war. That's unique as far as I know. Lots of things to deplore in the Old Testament, but there's not a lot of bloodshed in the new testament.

I've been studying Asian culture and history for the last twenty years or so. It's a little hard to come up with specific titles, my home library had a large section devoted to history and culture, but when I switched to Kindle and moved, my library was largely donated or left behind. No possibility of storing about ten thousand books in our little house. Even still I have boxes of them up at my shop and every shelf here filled--I rarely read physical books now, I'm not sure why I have them other than just loving books.
Recent stuff includes Asia: A Concise History, No God But God, The Crusades through Muslim Eyes, A history of Islamic Spain, I read Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources as a paperback recently because it's not available digitally.

My interest was inspired by my oldest daughter, Cassie, who reads at a rate that makes me look illiterate. She got interested in religion and it's effect on world history for a while. When either of my daughters would come visit, a trip to Powell's was necessary, and I let them buy any and all the books they wanted. We'd come home with stacks of books. It's much cheaper and more convenient now to let her use my Amazon account, which yields a lot of books I wouldn't have found.  She has wandered off into being fascinated with Korea--she now speaks and reads Korean. That's a direction I'm not going to follow.

[surf4food]

This will get some people arguing but it is very thought provoking and by and large I agree with him.  13 min long but worth watching. 

[PonoBill]

That was fun. He had me going at the beginning. NO! Not Penn!

[deepmud]

Pono I never said "ignorant" - I said lazy - maybe the lazy part is your using the broad brush to get your point across. It's lazy to end with "just because there are some secular Muslims" - as if that settles the issue of calling saying all Muslims are violent and want to kill us. It's lazy to say because they had a lot of violent past, they will be violent now - crap look at the U.S (maybe that's the problem with ISIS - the DO look at us the way you are presenting all Islam - us, imperialist bastards who slaughter all who appose them? We used to do that - and we've killed a LOT more Muslims(Iraqis for example) than have killed us.  I happen to know some stupid people - and they say things like "I've read the Koran, it says you must kill all infidels" - as if their interpretation ends the argument. I say your being lazy because you sound just like these idiots I happen to know -but I know you aren't an idiot.

My impression is "of COURSE Islam can be converted to violence" and  I'll even give you  "Yes, with the culture in the Middle East - WAY more easily used as a weapon than Christianity". You aren't telling us anything we don't know - but it doesn't change the fact that you are being WAY too broad in your descriptions of what faces us. Ignoring the non-violent groups, calling the whole religion and every (almost every but the "some secular Muslims) will not help make things better.

You point out I haven't produced any books backing me up - but all your arguments are historical facts - I'm not arguing against them - I'm arguing against YOUR interpretation  of them. Yes - we all know Isis want's to "Make Islam Great Again" - but I'm saying not all Muslims are ISIS, and you are saying they might as well be (correct me if I'm wrong here).

Lastly - don't you know any Muslims personally? I'm pretty white bread but I do. I've watched their kids and they mine. Practicing Muslims, educated sure, but followers of Islam. Nice people, history be whatever.  Why would you say their religion cannot be peaceful? Again - if it's not we're already doomed.

You don't have to say "the situation is benign" to avoid saying "all the billion Muslims are violent "because history" and out to do us in". We know it's not benign - there are crazy fuckers with guns and bombs (and trucks or whatever)  out to kill us. If you are just being simplistic (you replied to Yugi while I formulated my reply overnight) - give us some credit, don't dumb it down to make your point. It's pissing me off.  **EDIT** Of course - I should wary of "What You See Is All There Is"** - I'm ready to listen, of course.

[surf4food]

That was fun. He had me going at the beginning. NO! Not Penn!

Yeah that made my jaw drop initially.  I was wondering what is their show going to be like now?  What about "Fool us"?  Ha ha. 

[deepmud]

This will get some people arguing but it is very thought provoking and by and large I agree with him.  13 min long but worth watching. 

The weight loss had me going with it!  - big changes there sooooo.......??

Penn's story of the young man dealing with crap from both sides is painful.

He's also correct that you can't hate people you have to hate ideas, not the people.
"the chances of a terrorist believing in Islam are pretty good"
"the chances of someone believing in Islam being a terrorist are very, very bad"

Preaching hate won't help - he's correct there too. Best way to help the situation is to be brave and step up.

Worth watching.

[PonoBill]

I don't know any Muslims--not as friends anyway. I have a few acquaintances but that doesn't give me any understanding of who and what they are. My viewpoint is theoretical, but it comes from a lot of study of multiple perspectives. If you watched that video you heard the story of an atheist Muslim who said he stood a good chance of being killed in his community if his beliefs were known. That's in the USA, by the way. Would you give any credence to that kind of statement from a Catholic in South Boston? Do you give any credence to the statement based on him being a Muslim in an american muslim community? Do you assume terrorists would do the killing, or just people who believe their religion dictates that kind of action?

Do you see any difference in your own view?

For what it's worth, I think the USA should welcome muslim immigrants and refugees. I think it's vital to our self image as a country with a purpose and a soul. I think we need to apply some care, and as Penn intimated, I think there should be some totally unfair stipulations--like integrating with the general US population instead of forming exclusive communities. As I've said before many times, I believe we NEED immigrants. But that's just me. Looking at the situation in muslim communities in Europe certainly calls for some caution.

To me, understanding what Islam means, where it comes from, and how it impacts cultures is important. I don't care what an individual looks like, or what they believe as long as it doesn't impact me and mine. You can be a devil worshipper, and I won't care other than being curious about your choices and motivations. But I'd pay attention to the ramifications of devil worship and I'd be concerned if you started forming a large and aggressive community of devil worshippers.