Be well Sir, all the best.

I hope your getting better and I am very happy your father is doing well.

I don't like talking about death and illness. With me I hate that I had a few instances of illness it just made me feel helpless. I don't like felling not in control.

When I am in the hospital I don't want anyone to come and visit me. Not my wife not my kids no one. When a doctor tells me I did not have to be on IV any more and can move to regular medicine. I leave that minute. I left 3 o'clock in the morning. Nurse would tell me I can't leave I have to wait in the morning I tell them fuck you I am leaving now.

It was winter time I only had a pair of shorts I pulled the IV out and a catheter out and left.
---
Another time I got shot my doctor wanted me to do recovery work. I told him I would do it as an out patient. He told me to forget that. I had to reason with him before he would let me leave.

I hate hospitals one time a one time friend came to visit me a soccer coach. I never told him not to come because I never thought he would visit me. After 3 minutes I told him thank you goodbye.

Be well PB....

Any word on PB? It's been awhile since we heard anything from him. Hope he's doing well. If anyone is in contact with him please send him my regards and best wishes. The very best to you and your family PB!

Been a long time since I posted here, But PB was always one of my favourite posters.

Speedy recovery.

Whisper! Good to see you back... even for a minute. Hope all is well and you stick around.

I echo the well wishes for pizzaboy. Come back real soon, my brother!

Sending My Best wishes..

pizzaboy, I hope you are kicked back, happy, relaxed, tanned and healthy enjoying a cold beverage and a great Mets game!

(Unless they are playing the Cubs or White Sox, of course!)

God bless you, buddy. Come back soon!

I thought of Pizzaboy the other day after my cleaning lady told me she is from Frogs Neck Bronx. He's been gone along time and we all miss him. That must have been one hell of a debilitating heart attack to cause him to be out this long.

Frogs neck? You mean throgs neck right?

If anyone knows how to get in touch with him tell him to come to East Harlem on Sunday August 14 at I pm just outside of Rao's and we can lift the Giglio together.

Got my friend Lou going to be there and Genie boy from a Hun 9 street. Who knows even Johnny might show up.

Make sure your guns have bullets dipped in pigs blood just in case.

Pizzaboy was certain Hilary wouldn't be elected President.

It's either Hilary or Donald now.

I wonder if he is still so confident?

I still think The D is the lesser of two evils though.

No idea why anyone would be certain Hilary wouldn't win, she was always the favorite.

Not trying to pick a fight with someone who isn't here to defend himself, but again, Hilary was always most likely to win.

Donald is a fucking racist, clown, crook, sociopath, and Bernie never had a true chance.

You actually know Thrump no one who does ever said he was a racist not even Rivera. A clown with 10 billion dollars. Mighty do you even have a million? Even I have more then that. Crook who isn't a crook hilliary certainly is. Sociopath Thrump bull shit.

Bernie never was a democrat he lied about that he always was a socialist and so is Obama.

Donald Trump has been in the public eye for over 30 years and he was never once accused of being a racist by anyone until he decided to run against the Democrats.

REVIEW
Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an
By Juliane Hammer | April 9, 2014

399

Email
Print
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders
By Denise A. Spellberg
Alfred A. Knopf, 2013
On January 3, 2007, Rep. Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, took his symbolic oath of office with his hand on a two-volume English translation (by George Sale) of the Qur’an. It was no ordinary copy of the Qur’an but rather the one owned by Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers and third president of the United States. Ellison had planned to take the oath with a Qur’an and was alerted to the existence of this particular one in a letter from a constituent. When he announced his decision, controversy erupted. In response, Ellison told the Associated Press that the fact that Jefferson owned a Qur’an “demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran.” He added, “A visionary like Thomas Jefferson was not afraid of a different belief system. This just shows that religious tolerance is the bedrock of our country, and religious differences are nothing to be afraid of.”
It is this same sentiment that permeates Denise A. Spellberg’s new book, Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders. In it, Spellberg offers a meticulously researched and incredibly detailed account not only of how Jefferson came to acquire a copy of the Qur’an in English but also of the broader historical circumstances of his political career and the role of religion in the period of the founding fathers. Spellberg develops a nuanced and insightful analysis of the seemingly contradicting attitudes towards Islam and Muslims displayed by Jefferson and his contemporaries as represented in historical records. The conundrums she sets out to explore are the following: Why did the founding fathers include the theoretical possibility of Muslims not only as citizens of the United States but as federal office holders (including the presidency) in their deliberations on the one hand, while demonstrating decidedly negative views of Islam (and Muslim political adversaries overseas) on the other? Is the inclusion of Muslims as the farthest edge of political possibility more than a rhetorical tool for defining that same edge? Was Islam recognized as a legitimate religion, together with and beyond Judaism and Catholicism, in a young country that seemed to assume Protestantism as its foundation? What could Jefferson’s musings about Islam and his ownership of a Qur’an tell us about the negotiation of religion(s) in the realm of American politics?
Spellberg provides a broad historical frame for her inquiry. She starts in the early sixteenth century and spends her first two chapters on the development of European attitudes towards Islam, both negative and positive, to then reflect on how such European attitudes were carried as well as renegotiated on their passage to America. She establishes the existence of an, albeit fringe, movement for the political toleration of followers of Islam and early discussions of freedom of religious practice in New England. A curious play by Voltaire about the Prophet Muhammad, written as a critique of French politics, appears on stage in the late eighteenth century in North America, performed on both sides of the Revolutionary War. The 1797 novel The Algerine Captive, by Royall Tyler, takes up the captivity experiences of Americans in North Africa, but, according to Spellberg, provides a representation of Muslims and a reading of Islam so sympathetic that the author feels pressured to apologize. European and American Protestant thinkers argue for the separation of religion from government affairs and John Locke appears as a predecessor to Jefferson in both his interest in Islam and his ideas about toleration of religious minorities. Spellberg demonstrates the longer history of debates about secularism and religion on the one hand, and the toleration of Muslims in Europe, transported and rethought in America on the other.
The central chapters of the book follow a more or less chronological structure and trace Jefferson’s political career from 1765 to 1823. Spellberg lays out how Jefferson came to acquire a copy of the Sale translation of the Qur’an, which significantly contained an introduction, written by Sale, to Muslim history and law. She juxtaposes Jefferson’s negative views of Islam with his early arguments for Muslim civil rights and presents the tension between this latter argument and the presence of West African Muslim slaves which, by virtue of their racial classification and their status as unfree members of society, would not have been included in Jefferson’s consideration of Muslims as potential citizens. Jefferson and John Adams appear as political rivals in negotiations over North African piracy—talks which Jefferson carried out in part with the Tunisian ambassador in London. Spellberg emphasizes that Jefferson wanted to define the piracy problem and the ensuing conflict with North African states in explicitly political and economic terms and avoided reference to religion at all cost.
Around 1788, in the discussions leading up to the final form of the U.S. Constitution, Muslims, or at least imagined Muslim citizens, became a point of debate in regards to the religious oaths required of political office holders. Those opposed to Protestantism as the de-facto state religion argued for the inclusion of Catholics, Jews, and Muslims as political leaders; some even pushed for full religious inclusion and political equality for religious minorities. Those in favor of Protestant privilege warned of the dangers of non-Protestant infiltration and the resulting changes in the character of the United States. Spellberg’s chapter “Could a Muslim be President?” ends with the somewhat curious inclusion of the stories of two prominent African Muslim slaves, Abdul Rahman Ibrahima (or Ibrahima Abd al-Rahman, d. 1829) and Omar ibn Said (d. 1863). Spellberg presents them as a reminder of the presence of “real” Muslims in America, invisible and without rights, at the very same time that Jefferson and the founding fathers were discussing the hypothetical presence of American Muslims and their potential claims to political office. The last of four chapters on Jefferson discuss his continued, mostly negative references to Islam, and their connection to the ongoing conflict with Tripoli, as well as the ways in which Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, and Muslim despotism become points of reference in American political discourse, namely insults hurled at political opponents. Spellberg asserts that “Jefferson’s position on Muslim rights and potential for citizenship remained consistent from his days as a law student in the 1760s until the end of his life.”
The book contains an afterword that points to the continued significance of the questions at hand. Spellberg takes up the contemporary relevance of Muslim citizenship and political office and offers a cursory contemporary history, which includes: recent attacks on Muslim civil rights after 9/11, hate crimes against Muslims, insistent claims that Barack Obama is a Muslim, as well as the debate over Rep. Ellison’s swearing-in ceremony, and the controversy over the Park51 mosque and community center project in New York City. The list Spellberg offers closely resembles one posted on the ACLU website, which defends the protection of religious freedom for Muslims in the United States. The ACLU goes on to state: “We must always—especially in times of controversy—vigilantly uphold our core values. When we violate one group’s freedom, everyone’s liberty is at stake. And the ACLU will continue to defend the civil rights of everyone in our country.” Spellberg ends her book with a similar plea: “Any attack upon the rights of Muslim citizens should be recognized for what it remains: an assault upon the universal ideal of civil rights promised all believers at the country’s founding.”
Spellberg’s book demonstrates the depth as well as breadth of the research task she performed since 2005 when she first developed an interest in Jefferson’s Qur’an. The book contains meticulous footnotes and a wide array of primary and secondary sources and Spellberg does not shy away from alternative readings and conclusions of archival sources where she disagrees with existing scholarship. As a fellow Islamic studies scholar, though one who has focused on contemporary Muslim communities in the United States for some time, I admire Spellberg’s foray into unfamiliar territory (she self-identifies in the introduction as a “specialist in Islamic history”) and appreciate her willingness to connect her field of interest, Islam, with American constitutional history. Her training as an Islamicist makes it all the more surprising that one of my major concerns with her book is her repeated and insistent essentialization of Islam. Time and again, she juxtaposes correct understandings of Islam—which lack nuance and tend toward the idea that there is a recognizable and distinct entity called Islam—with incorrect or false understandings displayed by Jefferson and others. It becomes the most glaring (and disturbing) when Spellberg discusses Jefferson’s encounter with Abd al-Rahman, the Tripolitan ambassador to London. Abd al-Rahman is quoted referencing the Qur’an to support Tripoli’s expectation that the U.S. would pay in return for protection from pirate attacks, arguing that Islamic law required such treatment of others from Muslims. In the following pages, Spellberg, rather than reflecting on why the ambassador deemed it appropriate to use references to the Qur’an and Islamic law as political arguments, lays out a framework for jihad and peace in Islam that appears universal and even suggests which other Qur’anic passages the ambassador could and should have referred to instead. The same essentialism is also at work in the indiscriminate use of the word “Islamic” in many places where “Muslim” would be more appropriate and indicative of a nuanced discussion of normative claims and analytical statements.
My second “e” of concern (after essentialism) is exceptionalism: Spellberg focuses on Islam as the very edge of religious inclusion which raises both concern about what that might mean for Hindus, Buddhists, and others as citizens and holders of political office. It also omits the many ways in which the debates about Muslims and Islam were interconnected with and indeed interdependent on debates about Jews as well as Catholics. To be sure, there are glimpses of those debates and the book is focused on Islam, but this focus makes it necessary to reach elsewhere for the parallel (and different stories) of Jews, Catholics, and others as part of the American polity.
My last “e” is concern about Spellberg’s rather uncritical enthusiasm for the founding fathers and founding principles of the United States. The underlying argument for the book is the assumption, reflected in Ellison’s statement above as well, that all the United States needs is a good and solid look at its own history in order to be the best it can be. The political and totally naturalized liberalism at work here certainly makes the book appealing to a broader political spectrum, and indeed, at times it reads like a plea to those who want to exclude Muslims from civil rights and citizenship, but it severely limits the possibility for political critique. If all we can ask and struggle for is to go back to the founding ideals, then we are limiting the possibility of change and stifle the range of critical expansions in many directions. Bearing this in mind, this reviewer, perhaps too optimistically, hopes that the book can do its part to move those who need it most.
Juliane Hammer is associate professor and Kenan Rifai Scholar of Islamic Studies in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Donald Trump is now being accused of being a racist because he says racist things.

Not everything can be blamed on the Democrats.

Footreads, Donald Trump is a crook because he has constantly looted and bankrupted his own companies. He should have been indicted for his activities in Atlantic City decades ago.

Also, Barack lied about being a Democrat because he's actually a Socialist?

Honestly, what the fuck does that even mean? He was the Democratic nominee for President. He won the Presidency as a Democrat.

You realize you can have Democratic-Socialist leanings and be a Democrat, right? Those terms are not mutually exclusive. Was LBJ a Democrat? Was FDR a Democrat?

Here is Donald Trump being racist in 1989:

"On May 1, 1989, Donald J. Trump took out full-page advertisements in four New York newspapers calling for the return of the death penalty. Mr. Trump said he wanted the ''criminals of every age'' who were accused of beating and raping a jogger in Central Park 12 days earlier ''to be afraid.''

They were not guilty, by the way.

I am so happy Trump is showing his true colors and rapidly falling in his polls. This board might be a right wing cesspool, but the majority of Americans don't like Trump. Sorry guys. The dream is over. You can vote for your preferred nutjob in 2020.

Man, look at all these Democrats calling Trump out for his bullshit:

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) Tuesday said Trump's criticisms of Curiel are "the textbook definition of racist comments" and should be "absolutely disavowed."

BUT THE DEMOCRATS!!

MH,

good points.

The thing about racism is often not what is said, but what isn't said. Around the same time the Central park jogger case happened, some teens in Glen Ridge NJ....raped a retarded girl and used broomsticks,etc.

Not a peep from Trump or any of the other people who were rightfully outraged by the rape of the CPJ. No full page ads, no cries for justice, none of this "outrage"

It's the inconsistency people have that really points to their biases more so than comments about specific events.

*Glen Ridge dudes who raped the girl were found guilty and convicted.

How did a discussion of PB and his absence from the Board turn into a discussion of the presidential election? Well, since it has, consider this:

Above there is a post about US House Representative Keith Ellison taking his oath of office on the Qu'ran. No such event took place as described above. Before taking their respective seat in the House, a Representative simply stands in the well of the House and states their intention to abide by the US Constitution as required by Article VI of the Constitution. That's what Representative Ellison did. Andre Carson of Indiana did the same thing.

Now, let's get back to PB. PB, where are you?

maybe hes had enough of this site, he had been here 9 yrs I believe, he might be on another site,

That is not true first he doesn't really start those businesses. People come to him and ask to use his name on their business. He sells his brand name.

If you start your own businesses not all of them will succeed. If your a good business man most of them succeed. So your going to dig up the few that did not and make a talking point about them.

What I don't like about him. He falls for the questions the press try's to set him up with. If it was me and someone try to set me up on tv. First I would go with a recording device so I can recorded everything they said. So they can't do an editing job on what I actually said. Plus I would tell the reported what he said that was bull shit and tell him or her to fuck their father.

Yes, I remember that sure it wasn't them it was some friends of there's. When a gang does a job on someone. What they take off them gets handed off to others in the gang. So when they get picked up they don't have anything on them. She could not identify them they almost killed her.

You know that is how they get away with shit like this.

i never was a believer in having to get revenge on the actual person who do these things. Get some one who is close to them.

I remember that to find out if anything happen to them in prison. Pretty sure they probably got the same treatment in prison.

Hope your doing well PB

Same here PB. You're missed.

Yes funny convos. I will be heading to the bronx after finding out bronx zoo is biggezt in usa i loved the san diego zoo. So me an my girl will be down ct then there rettg soon.

I hope he will be able to relax now and eventually come back here! Take care until then.

PB is probably too excited about season 9 of "curb your enthusiasm" being announced to even think about this place