Pioneer1

The AfroAmerican community is very divided but AfroAmerican males are EVEN MORE divided than the AfroAmerican community in general!
The root of this division is the lack of a clear MORAL/ETHICAL CODE that exists among us.

Simply put, most AfroAmerican men can't agree with eachother on what is RIGHT or WRONG morally or on how one should conduct themselves in society.
And because of this we either go by our own OPINIONS  or let OTHERS from outside of our demographic including Europeans, Arabs, or even AfroAmerican women whom we want to impress or sleep with influence our thinking and behavior.....and then often end up fighting with EACHOTHER over these externally created differences.


Some say a man should only have one wife.
Others say that's the White man's way...a Black man should have SEVERAL.
Yet others say a man should be able to marry a HUSBAND if he wishes.

No agreement.


Some AfroAmerican men say that what the Bishop at Aretha Franklin's funeral did with Ariana Grande was wrong.
Others say grabbing on some titties is OK.
Other's THINK it's Ok but just won't say it and will sneak and do it.
Others think it's SICK and perverted.

No agreement.


Some AfroAmerican men think it's OK to sell drugs if you can't find any other employment.
Others say it's absolutely wrong no matter what.
Others say not only is it wrong but the dealer should be shot and killed.
Others BRAG about selling it

Again...no agreement.



Obviously Caucasians, Asians, and other races of BOTH sexes differ among themselves and even AfroAmerican women have THEIR differences as well, but they seem to agree MORE among eachother than we do AND they also seem to come togther and defend eachother AGAINST outside demographics who seek to come in and assault them where as many Afroamerican men not only attack eachother but also SIDE WITH others who may have a problem with a group of us.

Despite our differences in education, social status, wealth, and personality.....the fact is NO ONE ELSE is going to see the world and understand it the way another AfroAmerican man does.
It's time for AfroAmerican men to put atleast SOME of our differences to the side and develop a CODE among ourselves.

See this is why the AfroAmerican community is in so much turmoil.
The WOMEN have more of a "code" to stick together than the men.

If you look at all of the conflicts and disagreements on this board it's either between two Black men OR a Black man and a Black woman....but RARELY between two Black women.

Why?

Because they stick together and support eachother OVER Black men.
Now they disagree and fight with eachother....BUT...they try their best not to do it infron of Black men.

So now Cynique's been beating up on and trying to instigate trouble with Del for days and weeks but instead of siding with ME and condemning Cynique for such a slanderous remark....he ooooo's and aaahhhh's her comments and kind of gives her a thumb's up as if what she said was so intense.

I'm not bothered by this.
I just figure I'd point it out because it's just something that I routinely notice in the AfroAmerican community not just on this site but in other communities online in general.....how divided and fractured AfroAmerican men are.

AfroAmericans in general have problems uniting when it comes to White people, but AfroAmerican women have NO PROBLEMS uniting when it comes to AfroAmerican men because as quiet as it's kept many of them see BLACK MEN as their real enemy....not racism.



Del

I hope you know that no matter how much you compliment her wit  or sass she WILL continue to attack you from time to time.

I'm not saying she is your enemy or is out to harm you....it's not THAT serious.
But she simply will not treat you the way you want to be treated because she doesn't share the same "comradre" that me or Troy may have with you despite our intellectual or personality differences.

You can laugh at  her jokes about me....but rest assured next week she's gonna be clowning on YOU.

What I said also applies to Troy too.
And what I said ABOUT Cynique doesn't just apply to her alone but to MOST women online.

It's not a personal thing but more of a SEX/GENDER thing that most AfroAmerican men seem to be clueless on.

Incase y'all didn't know EVERYONE is against you including your own AfroAmerican woman and you BETTER learn how to get on code and stick together.


 

Chev

So do you believe that they existed?
 

To answer your question directly, no.
Because I don't trust the source telling me that they did....i.e...Western Archeology.


 

Okay, but what are you basing this on? I too believe that Black people have been in existence for many years beyond documented civilizations and I base this on what I read and regarding archeology.

I base it on two sources I have MORE trust in than Western Archeoly:

1. Ancient African and Indian traditional beliefs that teach the that the Earth and humanity is millions if not billions of years old and goes through ages (Yugas) and cycles.

2. The teachings of Elijah Muhammad that the Black man is TRILLIONS of years old and was teaching this as far back as the 1930s when most people of all races thought humanity was ONLY 6000 years old.



This doesn't make any sense because, if these so-called Jews had the Talmud, and based on THE PENTATUCH, then it would not have been orally.

The Oral law or Babylonian Talmud as it started off as being called IS NOT based on the Pentateuch (or first 5 books of the Old Testament).
It's based on the TORAH which is only ONE BOOK...that was allegedly given to Moses.
The Torah is NOT the Pentateuch because the Pentateuch was NOT written by Moses.




STOP! Believing that they existed or not is one thing, but the script clearly details Solomon, as he wrote himself, in that he was very, very Black skinned! Come on!

Actually that a common misunderstanding of The Song of Solomon 1:5

The speaker who is saying they are Black is NOT Solomon but actually the QUEEN OF SHEBA speaking to the Caucasian Israelite women of Solomon's kingdom who were probably giving her a hard time because she was Black or very dark.
Just like they gave Moses a hard time for marrying a Black woman from Ethiopia.

If you read the surrounding verses it provides more context:

"4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept."

She's actually describing herself and comparing herself TO the curtains of Solomon...so obviously this isn't Solomon speaking but her.
She also talk about how her mother's children were angry with her and made her the keeper of vineyards...again, this isn't Solomon but her.

She's defending herself against the anti-Black racism in that land.
Caucasians whether they were Jews or Arabs have had a long history of being anti-Black.

And to provide Biblical evidence that Solomon was a White/Caucasian man look no further than that SAME BOOK in which the SAME WOMAN (Queen of Sheba) describes Solomon her lover in ch. 5 vs.10

"My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand."

She says her lover is white and RUDDY which means a bit reddish.
White and rudy is the EXACT description of Caucasians who tend to have white skin with blushing and reddish hue mixed in.

I have to tell you the same thing I found out a long time ago sister......
Most of us were brought up in the church and WANT to book to be about Black people and our liberation but the truth is the Bible was a book written BY Caucasians FOR Caucasians....documenting their origin and history.



 

Troy

So out of this entire conversation and all the information exchanged between us, the ONLY thing that grabbed your attention enough to respond was MY statement about how long man has been on this planet???

52 minutes ago, Delano said:

The issue is who is in control. Not  who appears to be in control. 

 

The US has always been a Plutocracy. In name it is a republic. Currently it us becoming a Kleptocracy like Russia. 

I'm not arguing with you over whether or not the U.S. is or has ever been a Plutocracy.

You and Troy believe that a nation CAN NOT be an Oligarchy and Republic at the same time and I'm saying it absolutely can be because the United States is a prime example.

Oligarchies aren't all Republics, but nearly ALL practical Republics are  Oligarchies.

Chev


I have to level with you that I DO NOT believe in the commonly held "neanderthal" theory that Caucasian scientists have been promoting.
Let alone believe they roamed the entire earth.
To my knowledge even these scientists don't claim they roamed the entire planet but only parts of Europe and Western Asia.

Further, I don't know about "Black hominids" as I don't use the term hominid.

Black people are millions if not billions of years old and we were just as advanced if not MORE advanced millions of years ago than we are today.
We can't believe in those old racist evolutionary theories of half-mokeys dragging around, lol.

Now as for the Black presence in Turkey.

It is my BELIEF that aside from the original Black population that had been living there for millions of years, a more recent Black population in Turkey consisted of the Black troops who were STATIONED in Turkey after Caucasians were driven up into the Caucasus mountains.
Western Turkey is at the base of those mountains and the Black troops were sent there to stand guard to keep those wild Caucasians from coming back down into Black civilization.
They also built a wall near there to help keep them in called the Great Wall of Derbent.


 

The first date that this term 'JEW' was written was way long before the Talmud was translated in Babylon. The Babylonian-Talmud did not even come into fruition until after the Roman Empire. It’s dated to be around AD 200 to 500!!!

The Talmud EXISTED before then ORALLY, it just wasn't WRITTEN DOWN until much later.

It EXISTED in Babylon before Jews were sent to Jerusalem and it was known as the ORAL LAW...but scholars continued to add to it century after century.

Now if you believe David and Solomon even existed.....which is questionable......according to the Bible itself NEITHER one of them were Black.

There was no such thing as "original Black Jews".

Most Jews were originally...as most are today....Caucasian.


As for Paul, he was clearly a deceiver who even admitted to this in his own letters!


"Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved. But be it so: ... nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."
(2 Cor. 12.15-16)

Catching someone with guile means TRICKINGt them!


"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, that I might gain them that are without law. ... I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (1 Cor. 9.19-22).

Again, he admits he deceptively told people what they wanted to hear and was all things to all men.

He was a Roman agent used to try and destroy the Nazerene movement started by Jesus.
 

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 7:12 PM, Cynique said:

How many times do i have to say i like to argue?   

 

 She's a card playing chain smoking alcoholic who ALSO likes to argue.

LOL....why am I NOT surprised?

1 minute ago, Delano said:

Pioneer your beliefs have serve your life. Whether they are correct the norm r idiosyncratic doesn't matter. We see the world differently. Your approach is experiential mine is theoretical. Each has its place. 

Can you highlight and clearly show me where I am wrong in the above post?

Del
 

The issue is the locus of power. With a republic it rest with the Public. The elected officials are representatives and not rulers.

Lol....what do you mean they are not rulers when CONGRESS MAKES THE RULES.

Rulers are WHOEVER MAKES THE RULES/LAWS.

Congress...the elected officials....the Oligarchs of the Republic...are called LEGISLATORS because they are the ones who make up and pass the laws/legislation/rules!

So yes....
Power may REST with the public but it's EXERCISED by the elected officials who make up only a small minority of the nation they're exercising their power over.

In a Republic the only real "power" the public has is to RE-ELECT different officials whom they feel aren't properly serving their interests.

In other words......a Republic gives you the opportunity to replace one set of Oligarchs with another.

Chev

I think he moved past what an assault may be though. I may be wrong on this, but this is what I remember as it was explained to me. I think it went something like this; if a person raises their hand or approaches in a threatening mode, then that would be AN ASSAULT. But if they actually came through and hit you, then that would be BATTERY; hence a criminal charge of Assault and Battery. But, in this situation, I may be wrong. Anyway, he didn't even give her a chance to say no, 'get you creepy arms off of me', because he did it in public and put her in an awkward position. But again, she doesn't need to speak out, he was wrong. It's not about her, it is about him and what he did.

It would only be assault or battery if:

1. He INTENDED to harm her....which he clearly didn't (even groping isn't harming)
2. She first warned him NOT to touch her or clearly made it known that she didn't want him to....which she clearly didn't.

No crime was committed here.

You wouldn't get upset if your girlfriend was groped?

Lol.....
One of the lady friends I'm involved with right now I met by what you may call "groping"!

She works in a book store and I came in a few times to order some books and each time she checked on my order I would have a conversation with her and touching her.
First time I put my hand on her back-waist....but the next few times I met her I touched her back giving a very slight rub.
We've been out a couple times already!
Clearly SHE wasn't offended that a man put his hand on her.

Infact she joked with me about it yesterday when we were talking about what Bishop Ellis asking me was touching women you barely know a "Detroit thang"....lol.

　

Umh . . . . . . That is interesting take, but @Pioneer1 hence . . . The Roman Empire . . . Do you realize that was the justification used to throw down the Original mankind? JUlius Ceasars' tactic was to appeal to a Matriarchal position because the needs of the ethnic and Black women were not met by their own mankind, and for that matter, isn't that why it is said that Jesus came? The priesthood ignored their own womankind? So, they were uprooted. So, now Black women had more freedom to get away from aggressive Black men behind the cloak of the priesthood who think that they can just 'take liberties' and go from one woman to the next . . .. without giving us . . . complete fulfillment? They must have went a little more farther than just being 'a little too aggressive with their touching'... I can't help but think about the 7 DEMONS that MARY OF MAGDALENE had... Jesus healed her of being vexed by those 7 perverts that left her wanting' . . . smh. So now, after the Church as set up, now here we go again... dealing with the Eddie Longs and what ever else...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.
Could you make it a little clearer for me or probably re-word it so that I can understand it a little better?

BTW...there is no such thing as "original mankind", lol.
Mankind is NOT the original man but a COPY of the original man.
Caucasians are "mankind" or a KIND of man but not the original.



 

don't even bring up the Greek culture because many of those Spartans were actually Black!

They were?
 

Who was it that attacked Kalief Browder!? What do you think is going on in the prisons? But more importantly, the history about the very term that you use 'Caucasian' has this dark history too, attached to it

I'm not sure if we can compare that madness that is going on in the modern prisons of the U.S. to what FREE Caucasian men have been practicing for centuries under their own free will.

Prisons are a controlled environment.
Whatever is going on in there is ALLOWED to go on uncheck and in many cases ENCOURAGED to go on there because those men aren't in control of themselves but someone else is CONTROLING them.

The pedophilia and other perversions you see going on in the Catholic church and other organizations is a manifestation of FREE WILL and no one is forcing those men to engage in that perversion.

 

Mel

Lol....that's a COMMUNION DRESS!

What are you doing frolicking around on stage in such holy attire??????

the initial conversation was referring to sexual assault and rape of minors.

Correction.

The INITIAL conversation was about a GROWN man with his arm around a GROWN woman and the many ASSUMPTIONS people were making about what he intended by it and how she felt by it.

Child beauty pageants aren't indicative of that type of criminal activity. If it were , or even if making that leap wasn't nonsensical, child beauty pageants would be illegal.

Further you stated that "caucasians" were proned to sexual assault and rape minors. Child beauty pageants, children wearing makeup and dressing in party dresses and gowns is NOT sexual assault and rape.

No child beauty pageants aren't NECESSARILY indicative of child molestation and pedophilia but they often LEAD to these crimes. Especially when the children are asked to dress up and parade around on stage in bikinis and daisy duke shorts which are OBVIOUSLY meant to sexualize them.
Even though THEY aren't old enough to realize it.....their mothers and fathers do.
They are COMPLICIT in the sexualization of their own children.

Ofcourse AfroAmericans have beauty pageants for children but do AfroAmerican parents dress their young children up in bikinis and daisy dukes?

Do they SEXUALIZE them the way so many of these Caucasian parents do?

I'm obviously not as familiar with this industry as you are so I stand corrected if this IS going on in the AfroAmerican community, because I'm an AfroAmerican and I'm not aware of it.
 

The fashion industry used to use models who were young as 12 years old. Most designers use children because they don't have curves or muscles.

Is that the excuse they're giving for wanting to sexualize adolescents?

Nah....not buying it.

And what about NAMBLA...the North American Man/Boy Love group?

Here's a bunch of White men who are OPEN pedophiles and are lobbying to make pedophilia legal!

Come on Mel, give it up.
I know you want to draw a moral equivalency between the two to somehow make the Black man look JUST AS GUILTY as White men but you just can't.....lol.

There's no way you can compare the sick and perverted EXCEPTIONS that go on in the AfroAmerican community to THIS madness that is not only common and frequent but actually SANCTIONED  in the Caucasian community with entire institutions dedicated to promoting it and covering it up!


Further.....
If you want to compare grown men who by the consent of society MARRY 13 or 14 year old girls who are probably already in puberty and will be sexually mature in just a few years; to grown men who MOLEST young children around 4 or 5 years old and hide their behavior, and put them in the same category.....go right ahead.
But I won't.

I don't think EITHER ONE is proper, but one is clearly worse than the other.

However he is rendered ineffective in 2018. The original intent of his actions have been buried and everyone has co-opted his message. 45 has used it to fire up his racist and xenophobic base by perverting Colin's message on Twitter. Nike is now exploiting the optics to increase shareholder wealth

All the while nothing in the Black community has changed -- other than for the worse.

My sentiments as well.

I also agree with Cynique that Colin is being elevated by others seeking to capitalize off of him by either villifying him or using his image to make money.

I think some are trying to make a "Black Jesus" sacrificial figure out of him which may infact do even MORE damage because it will encourage our many of young men to lay down and just play VICTIM hoping someone will feel sorry for you and give you a break....instead of standing up and actually FIGHTING against injustice or establishing your own industry.
 

Instead of organizing and buying your own team or better yet your own league......


"Don't choo pay dem folks no neva-mind!
Just keep own doin' whachoo doin' boy and somewheah....somehaah.....some GOOD white folk  go feel sorry fo' ya and come 'long and SAVE ya!"
 

Troy
 

you will impress me if you just accept that you misunderstood the meaning of these terms, learn from this, and move in. Like the rest of us, you are merely human and capable of making a mistake -- is it not a big deal. We all do it.

You should be MORE impressed that my allegiance is to the TRUTH and the literal definition of words instead of simply agreeing with their more popular MIS-understandings.

People toss around words like Democracy, Republic, and Oligarchy without properly knowing what they ACTUALLY mean and too often end up being manipulated through their ignorance.
If the masses are ignorant of the true definition of words...which public education in the United States seems to ensure.....then it's easy for someone to point the finger at another nation and accuse THEM of being ruled by an Oligarchy when THIS nation is also ruled by one too.


 

Del

I'm not sure where you got that definition from but I usually go to MERRIAM-WEBSTER for my definitions because it's a traditional soure and according to THEIR definitions......


OLIGARCHY

1 : government by the few

2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy


 

REPUBLIC

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president

(2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government

b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

(2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

So according to Merriam-Webster an Oligarchy is a government in which a small group EXERCISE CONTROL.

And a Republic is government either with a chief of state who is not a monarch or a government in which supreme ower resides in the body of it's citizens entitled to vote AND IS EXERCISED BY ELECTED OFFICERS AND REPRESENTATIVES

The key concept you need to focus on is that in a Republic the power is exercised by the ELECTED OFFICERS AND REPRESENTATIVES.....not the citizens!
In a Republic the citizens may vote in people to represent them, but the citizens themselves aren't the ones exercising the power but it's that SMALL GROUP OF ELECTED OFFICIALS who have that power and you can only HOPE that they exercise it to your satisfaction.

Which basically means a Republic IS an Oligarchy in which that Oligarchs (those exercising power) are elected.

 

Cynique
 

A republic is not an oligarchy because it is not ruled by a small group of people; it is ruled by a large governing body elected by its citizens to represent them.

The words "small" and "large" are relative.
Congress who makes the rules consist of over 500 people, but that's still a TINY group compared to the 300+ million citizens they were elected to make the rules for.

536 elected Oligarchs (if you add the President) who exercise power over the mass of hundreds of millions.

 

Dang woman you posted a lot for me to delve into, lol.

It's so late in the night I'm gonna have to take my time to digest all of this info and give it the proper respect it's due before responding.

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:00 AM, Troy said:

@Pioneer1, it is not ALL the time man, but done in jest or to make stronger point -- never intended to be taken personally ;-)

 

At the risk of being called a homo by Pioneer, I love @Delano.

I knew you were a homo BEFORE declaring your love for Del....lol.

HomoSAPIENS...that is.

Mel

I don't see ANY parents and children participating in any criminal activity -if I did I'd report them to the authorities.

I have written and broadcast news reports on sexual assaults against minors when I was Television News Reporter / Anchor. As I've written, even with a small percentage of black people in the Ohio valley - color doesn't matter. Sexual assault is an equal opportunity crime.

BY THE WAY, HOW MANY WHITE PARENTS HAVE YOU SEEN participating in these sick and freakish events?

You don't have to look very hard.

Don't tell me you've never heard of these child beauty pageants that are shown on televison and held across the nation where little 3 and 4 year old girls are being put in bikins and daisy dukes and getting spray on tans made to be sexualized.
Nearly ALL of the participants are Caucasian.

Jon Benet Ramsey is just one example of what could be the unfortunate end result when sick perverted inclinations are allowed to be turned into entertainment.

My overall point is how so many women of ALL races are up in arms and angry about men who flirt or get a little too aggressive with their touching.....things that AfroAmerican men are more prone to do.

Yet when it comes to EXTREMLY sick and perverted behavior like promoting pedophilia and molesting children like these Catholic priests and other Caucasian men are doing....most of these same women don't seem to be nearly as outraged and seem not to even be concerned.

 

I will agree with you on this point. Because every woman is different. Finally!

This is almost common sense so ofcourse we agree.

So if every woman is different then we can agree that SOME women LOVE to be touched by a man and welcome sexual assertiveness as long as it's not forced on her against their will.

So why aren't THESE women speaking up more and adding some balance to the argument?

Because the narrative is being framed to FRAME Black men...that's why.






 

Chev

I can't believe that you can't see this for what it is. Ms. Grande's smiling mean noting to his behavior.

You're right that her smiling doesn't change the appropriateness of HIS behavior.
However her smiling says a lot about HER mindset and whether or not she WELCOMED his behavior.

I say again, how do we know she DIDN'T want to be touched by this man?

I'm not saying she did or didn't...but she's not saying....WE the public are doing all the saying and assuming about what she was thinking.




He borderlined if not crossed the line on what is criminal, and that is why the news reports showed the clip. It's obvious. I was taught that a person doesn't even have to touch you, and certain behaviors is considered 'AN ASSAULT'.


What that man did was inappropriate...I admit....but is no where NEAR an "assault".
And if it is...then we might as well say that EVERY man who has held a woman in his arms is guilty of sexual assault.

Ms. Grande may have smiled and kept up an decent reaction due to being 'caught off guard' and for the sake of the situation being public, but she was clearly tensed up at his grabbing her like that.

It's true that she MAY have been smiling to cover up her nervousness but again, that's US assuming this.
We don't really know what's going on in her head and she has YET to actually speak out on it.

Troy

Seriously @Pioneer1, you wrote that a Republic was "just ONE FORM of an oligarchy." If you would just name two other forms, I think I can help you think about what the terms mean and why saying something like, "A nation can be an Oligarchy, Plutocracy, AND a Republic all at the same time" is like saying a fruit can be an apple, pomegranate, and a kiwi all at the same time.

If you would have carefully read what I said I actually GAVE you another form.....China.

China...a nation of over a billion people....is governed by a small group of people in the Communist Party that probably numbers no more than 1 million.
A small group ruling the masses.

And if you want more examples of yet another form of Oligarchy you can look at Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the Vatican....nations with governments that rule through religion.
They are known as THEOCRACIES but still consist of a small group governing the masses.

These are just various FORMS of a small group ruling the masses....but still a small group ruling the masses none the less.


 

As an aside, it would also be interesting to read some of the other reasons you are "GLAD" you did not go to college, I'd like to hear other reasons why you are happy to have not gotten an education. Do you feel the same way about a high school education too?

Well for one thing, I'm debt free.
I don't have a degree but I don't owe the government any money for student loans or for other obligations so all the money I get is mine.

Another reason I'm glad is when I look at how college seems to INDOCTRINATE the students into a particular mindset.
They claim college is suppost to be about education and professionalism but when I look at most college students today....most of them don't have enough sense to blow their own nose when it's stuffy nor do they even wash their hands before eating....but they can program a computer or argue Einstein's theory of relativity.
You're basically taught to put all your faith in "science" and what the leaders of science tell you instead of questioning how true it is and finding out for yourself.


As far as highschool.....
Honestly, I don't feel I learned anything of value FROM highschool.
I learned a lot of things DURING MY HIGHSCHOOL YEARS about people and society in general, but academically...very little.

Most of what I know academically I was either taught by my mother at a young age or I learned on my own through reading and travel when I got old enough.
School did little to nothing for me as far as imparting knowledge.
 

Del

A Republic is in essence opposite to an oligarchy.

So while yiur definition of oligarchy is acceptable. Your usage if the word T

Republic ic is not. Correct usage doesn't require a college degree. However rationalising your error by exporting it isn't sensible.

A Republic implies indirect rule by the people.

A Republic is NOT an opposite to an Oligarcy, it's just another form of the same thing.

This isn't very hard......
Again, an Oligarchy is simply a form of government where a small number of people rule over the masses.

THAT'S IT.

When you talk about a Republic....despite what it "implies" or what some statesmen TELLS you....you're still talking about a government where a small group of people are ELECTED to represent and rule the masses.

It doesn't matter how you chop it up or RE-NAME it....it still amount to a small group of people ruling the masses.

The only forms of government I can think of right now that AREN'T forms of an Oligarchy would be a Democracy and an Anarchy....where either the majority rules or nobody rules.
And neither one of those governments exist on this planet currently, to my knowledge.

 

((sigh....shakes head))

You know,
Seeing how confused so many well educated people can be over simple issues like the one above is one of the reasons I'm GLAD...I didn't go to college!  

Chev

Have you ever read a book by Sigmund Freud called "Moses and Monotheism"?

If not, I think you would find it very interesting.

 

You're right about Turkey having once been a Black land.
The entire Earth used to be Black....lol.

Now to understand Paul and his role in deception, we have to understand that there is a difference between Jews and Israelites.

One is an ethnic group made of multiple people's while the other is more of a nationality that involves a more narrow bloodline.

Israelites came from Jacob, but Jews actually came from Babylon.

Jews and their religion of Judaism was INVENTED in Babylon by mixing some of the teachings of Moses with certain Persian and Babylonian beliefs.
That's where the Talmud came from too btw....Babylon.

Unlike the Israelite who according to the Bible had a bloodline back to Jacob, the Jews were a mixture of Israelites AND Persian AND Babylonian converts who all added their beliefs to help shape the new religion.

So when King Cyrus finally allowed them to return to Jerusalem, they returned with a NEW religion and NEW holy books that were tampered with and weren't in line with the original teachings of Moses.

They also had to come with overseers to monitor them and make sure they were teaching this new religion....called Pharisees.
Pharisees were PERSIAN overseers that King Cyrus sent to Jerusalem to be the religious authorities over the Israelites who were there to make sure they kept the laws of the NEW religion called Judaism.

Jesus recognized this.
The Pharisees were among his biggest opponents.


Paul wasn't just a Jew...he was a Pharisee and part of an organization that was invented to be oppressive overseers of the people.

 

Troy

Again, I know what an Oligarchy is and it has NOTHING to do with how the leaders got in office.
It doesn't matter if they were elected to office, born into office, or got in as a result of a coup....the definition remains the same.

A FEW IN CONTROL OF THE MANY.

There is no argument about it, the United States IS an Oligarchy and it has ALWAYS been an oligarchy from it's conception.

It makes no different if the public ELECTS their oligarchs to represent them.

Republics are just ONE FORM of an oligarchy.

China where a relatively small group in the Communist Party who govern that nation represents another form.

And guess what?

A nation can be an Oligarchy, Plutocracy, AND a Republic all at the same time.

Wasn't a billionaire just ELECTED by the public to be President?
Didn't New York ELECT a billionaire to be it's mayor?

Anyway................

That chicken wing chewing minister Jasper Williams is the one who offended me, not Bishop Ellis.
This is supposed to be a eulogy for Aretha and celebrating her life and this negro wants to get up and hoop and holler about "black on black crime" and "out of wedlock births" talking about "Black lives don't matter".

I'm glad Steve Wonder got up and CHECKED his ass and corrected him shortly after.

Now we're getting word that Franklin's family were also offended by his sermon.

Some of what he said was actually true, but it was out of place and inappropriate for the occasion.

Delano

A Minister is feeling a women up at a public funeral. Hown many levels of wrong is this.

I think it's wrong on the level of "ethics".
As a minister his profession urges him to be modest and restrained when it comes to touching women so it was inappropriate because of his profession.

But morally speaking what he did was NOT wrong, it was natural.
It's not like he actually had sex with the woman or tongue kissed her.....he just got a little squeeze on.

 

Chev

I'm glad you were able to get away from that clown.
I think it's normal for men of all ages to find young women attractive but you have to know "your lane" and he obviously had a problem if he couldn't control himself from hitting on teenage girls.

However, I don't think your unfortunate encounter with a stalker and potential rapist is on the same level as a man sneaking a quick squeeze on a grown woman's breast and giving her a hug in a public setting.

One is distasteful, but the other is down right CRIMINAL.

Yes, She did pull away. She absolutely looked uncomfortable.

I didn't see her pull away and you say she looked uncomfortable, it's hard for me to tell.
Perhaps she was, but she didn't show it to me because she was smiling through the entire thing and even gave him a hug before leaving.




Come on. Well, what about the other way around.

I find it attractive when a woman shows interest in me and lets me know in so many ways she finds me attractive, but if she CHASES me or gets head over heels GOOFY around me.....that's a a bit "off putting", lol.


 

Mel

"Feeling on" someone is a predatory act.

I would agree somewhat.
But the most successful men DO have a predatory instinct and this goes back to the beginning of history where it made men bold enough not simply to push up and squeeze on the woman they found attractive BUT ALSO brave enough to HUNT vicious animals to bring home to her and their children and DEFEND his woman and child from danger.

With nature you have to take the bitter with the sweet.

 

Since our laws have something called consent then it's illegal to touch, "feel on" as you say, anyone that doesn't consent. While we may never hear from Ariana Grande publicly - her initial reaction was one of alarm and to pull away initially towards his microaggression.  This was indicative or her lack of consent.

You and Chevdove said she pulled back.
I didn't see this.....not in the clip Troy provided atleast.
I've been looking for OTHER clips of the entire exchange but can't find one that hasn't been diced up and commented on but I don't remember EVER seeing her pull back from him, make a funny or angry face, or give ANY OTHER indication that she found his embrace offensive.

It seems to me you're making a lot of assumptions about how she feels and what was going through her head instead of dealing with what we all saw in the video.
Which was two adults embracing eachother and smiling.

I hear more objections from the public than I've heard from her.
 

You've already stated that is normal for men to feel on who and what they find attractive. Therefore, it wouldn't matter what color they are. You've already stated it's normal. So what's left, is a lot of covering up and people not speaking out.

I didn't say that it was normal for men to feel on who and what they find attractive.
Go back and reread my exact words.
 

there are far too many crime reports of black men sexually assaulting and raping children and babies for anyone to point fingers.

ANY report of Black men sexually assaulting and raping children is too many.
However that number STILL can't compare to the number of Caucasian men who are doing it and you just can't make it be so despite your attempts to "spread the blame" around.

The fact is pedophilia is FAR MORE pervasive and even tolerated in the Caucasian community than in the Pan-African community.
The evidene of this goes all the way back to Greek culture where grown men having sex with young boys was common up until today with beauty pageants that feature toddlers.

How many Black parents and children do you see participating in these sick and freakish events?


 

Terror usually produces one of two reactions - Fight or Flight... There been a few reports of men beating the shit out of homosexual men who hit on them. One highly publicized crime report Kidd Creole, of grandmaster flash and furious five stabbed a man to death who he only thought was making a move on him.  When this story hit social media - more men came out to respond they would have killed the "bitch" too if he came after them. These men exhibited fearful behavior in response to unwanted sexual advances.

While you're correct that terror will produce fight or flight, to claim that men beat up homosexual men for hitting on them because of "terror" and fear is an incorrect interpretation of the feelings of most heterosexual men.

It's more of a mixture of anger, disgust, and resentment along with the strong need to maintain a public image of masculinity and strength that leads to such a violent reaction and NOT fear.



 

Men will physically attack a woman they find ugly if she pushes up them ....

Lol....I actually DO know a few who will.
But most won't.
Most men will try to avoid her or if push comes to shove (no pun intended) will resort to insulting her in order to drive her away, but most men don't do that.
Infact, many men will USE her for her money or for "quickies" if she just won't leave him alone...before resorting to violence.



 

This appears to be an attempt normalize unwanted behavior. I don't condone it.

I asked a question.
It wasn't intended to normalize or promote any particular behavior but to get an answer...and honest answer from you.


 

This assumes facts not in evidence

LOL....LOOK WHO'S TALKING!!!

After all those assumptions about how Ariana and how much a victim she was being "sexually assaulted" by the big bad boogy man.....while she's standing there with a big smile on her face...NOW you wanna deal with the facts that are evident??????

and it assumes because a man looks a certain way it should give him the right to sexual assault a woman

No being an attractive man DOES NOT give a man the right to sexually assault a woman.
However we shouldn't assume that just because a man touches, feels up, and even makes the first move on a woman that she NEVER likes it or enjoys the feeling of it.

I know from personal experience since back in my highschool days that simply putting my arms around a girl I didn't know and playing with her was SOMETIMES enough to form a sexual relationship with her....and other times enough to get you slapped.

The point is not every woman feels the same way and not all are "offended" at men touching them.



 

Troy

but no one will forget the the Catholic Church's offenses because "bishop" grabbed him some grande tittie. We can remember more than one thing at the same time.

I think you're overestimating the attention span of the public and
Grande's encouner with the Bishop is almost a household topic, meanwhile after a few days of reporting the incident in Pennsylvania the media there is a virtual media BLACK OUT of the massive coverup and I bet neither you nor anyone on this board can remember the NAMES of the Priests who were guilty of those wicked sexual crimes.

Like I said, the racists in the media NEEDED to find a distraction to take the heat off of White men and this was a perfect opportunity for them.

The rant against 45, the dig against Obama absence were uncalled for inappropriate -- That kind of rhetoric was apropo for the old Tavis Smiley State of Black America Conference .

????
I must say, I'm a little suprised at your reaction to his words.

We finally get a well educated AfroAmerican man who is willing to stand up on live television and speak truth to power and tell it like it is....and you say it pretty much amounts to immature ranting?
 

Cynique

I didn't read this post by pioneer because I -wouldn't be able to understand it anyway?

I know.

Lol, say no more.

1 hour ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

Then by this logic, if it is normal behavior for men,  specifically clergy to sexually assault women then the catholic priests are normal.Maybe in an effort to keep their vows they turn their natural inclination on unsuspecting boys.   No need for a coverup. Media is just pointing out the widespread activity that also occurs in the black church.

 

Now it makes perfect sense why so many heterosexual men are terrified of homosexual men... If it's natural for men to advance on and assault women when they choose; then it's perfect;y natural for a gay man to feel up on any man he chooses.   

Got to appreciate the balance in the universe.

 My, my, my!
A lot of stuff here to unpack.....lol.



 

Then by this logic, if it is normal behavior for men, specifically clergy to sexually assault women then the catholic priests are normal.

No, I didn't say it was normal for men to SEXUALLY ASSAULT women.
I said it was normal for men to love to feel on and be around atttactive women.
There's a difference between the two behaviors becaues the former clearly implies contact with a woman AGAINST her will.
The question I have is, did Ariana pull away from or resist physically or verbally to what the Bishop did?



Maybe in an effort to keep their vows they turn their natural inclination on unsuspecting boys.

Perhaps.
Celibacy is clearly unnatural behaviour for most people and it could lead to problems, however I'm not a psychologist and can't assume that this is the entire problem.

Perhaps these priests were homosexuals or pedophiles ALREADY and joined the priesthood specifically to molest young boys AND PROTECT EACHOTHER in doing so because this sounds like a massive conspiracy that has been going on in the Catholic church for centuries.




No need for a coverup. Media is just pointing out the widespread activity that also occurs in the black church.

I'm sure pedophilia occurs in the Black church and in the greater Black community to SOME DEGREE but I seriously doubt that it occurs to the same degree that it occurs in the White church because from all accounts and reports PEDOPHILIA ITSELF isn't as widespread in the Pan-African community as it is in the Caucasian community.

If we look at the percentages of Caucasian adults who have been both accused and convicted of molesting children and compare those figures with the percentages of African adults....I'm sure we would find thier numbers being FAR greater.

There are some who would like to make African men JUST AS GUILTY of this sick perverted behavior as Caucasian men for the same reason some in the media are inflating and exaggerating Bishop Ellis's touching of Ariana Grande as some sort of evil and wicked deed to COVER UP the recent exposure of hundreds of priests who conspirted to molest thousands of boys over the decades.....they want to make Black men seem just as if not more guilty than White men.
But the number and reports just don't support such assertions.

Pedophila is still a predominately Caucasian perversion.

 

Now it makes perfect sense why so many heterosexual men are terrified of homosexual men...

I'm not sure that most heterosexual men are "terrified" by homosexual men but as a heterosexual man I will grant you that most or atleast a large percentage feel UNCOMFORTABLE around homosexual men because of the concern that these men may find THEM sexually attractive....but that's a long way from being terrified.



If it's natural for men to advance on and assault women when they choose

It's natural for men to advance on....but NOT to assault....the women they choose.
It's also natural for most women to find their advances ATTRACTIVE.

While assaulting women, stalking women, and harassing women are not acceptable in a civilized society, would you concede that most women are NOT attracted to "shy" men or men who are afraid to approach them or make the first move?

Traditionally men have been the more assertive of the sexes and most women found this quality attractive.



; then it's perfect;y natural for a gay man to feel up on any man he chooses.

If he's gay then perhaps it's natural for him to WANT to feel up any man he chooses, but it's not natural for him to ACTUALLY do so because living in a predominately heterosexual world prevents him from doing so.
Most gay men are smart enough to know that doing so would get them seriously injured or killed.

 

BTW, with all of this talk we have YET to hear from Ariana herself about how she felt about the Bishop's behavior.

How do we know Ariana DID NOT find his behavior appealing or attractive?

He's not a bad looking man and he's certainly a man of wealth and means and power.
Are we to believe that she found him THAT repulsive and disgusting?????
 

Chev

What do you mean 501C3?

This is the IRS code for the tax exempt status most churches receive from the government.
In exchange for promising to not get involved in politics, not only do they get special status to NOT pay taxes on all the money they take in but many churches also get special grants from the federal and state governments simply for keeping their mouths shut about political and social issues.

Much of the money that now goes to churches to feed the poor and shelter the homeless USED TO come from the fedral government and go directly to the people but NOW it passes through the hands of the preachers and the staff of local churches allowing them to get a cut of the money before it even reaches the people.

Many of these churches are WORSE than businesses.
Why?
Because atleast when a business wants to get work done they will hire and PAY employees atleast a minimum wage; but most churches have elderly and female members working FOR FREE and instead of paying them they tell them they're doing "the lord's work" .
....while the preachers get the actual money.

 

What do you mean when you say this? Are you saying that Christianity was FOUNDED by European racist after the movement was started, or are you saying it was founded by them, meaning that none of the friends of Jesus had anything to do with it,

Both.

Christianity was founded by Paul who took the teachings of Jesus and modified it to make it more palitable to the Romans and Greeks by adding some of their religions to those teachings.
Jews said you had to be circumcised and couldn't eat shell fish.
Europeans couldn't tolerate that so Paul CHANGED for them.

Paul was a hired Roman agent who went around hunting down and persecuting the followers of Jesus who were called "Nazarenes"....not Christians.  So it's not suprising that he would distort those teachings and use them to form a new religion based on Greek and Roman mythology rather than liberating the land from the Roman occupiers.



Christianity wasn't founded by Jesus in Jerusalem but was put together by Paul and other Romans and Jewish collaborators much later on after Jesus and they eventually convened in a city called Antioch in what was then called Asia Minor but today is called TURKEY and Turkey is part of what we now call Europe today.

Even the Bible says this in Acts ch.11

"25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

It's funny how according to the Gospels Jesus tells his disciples to go ALL OVER THE WORLD to spread the word, but when you read the New Testament you're only getting letters from Paul visiting European place like Antioch, Patmos, Corinth, Ephesia, and Galatia.......

You hear nothing about the disciples of Jesus like Thomas or Andrew who went to Africa, or China, or India, ect.....

Chev

Cynique cares enough to take the time to debate with you so, I hope you can respect that. Right?

My dear lady,
Please don't confuse "care" or concern with OBSESSION......LOL.

The woman is obsessed with me.
Like Michael Jackson said.....she's dangerous.

 

I'm not sure you're correct about blue eyes not being manifested prior to 6000 years ago.

Black people have been around for millions of years and different mutations from white skin on one person, to blue eyes on another, and blonde hair on another, pops up among us every so often.

Not in MASS NUMBERS, but it does happen.

When you say that Arican hair is different than Native American or Asian hair, I know the SHAPE of the hair is different in the sese that kinky hair is more of a flat or oval shape coming out of the scalp than the straight hair of Asians and Native Americans that tends to be more of a round shape.

But as far as the actual STRUCTURE or make-up of the actual hair shaft, are you saying the African hair has components that Asian and Native American hair doesn't have?

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 1:31 PM, Chevdove said:

 

@Pioneer1 Thank you!

You know, I really don't see myself as being 'religious' because well, too much confusion, but I search for the facts behind the purpose these religions came about. 

As usual, you're more than welcome.

Speaking of religion, the oldest religions on the planet revolve around ancestor veneration.
Some call it "ancestor worship".
You basically pay homage and honor to your deceased relatives and seek messages and signs from them to help you in this life and also help you make the transition of death easier.
You can find this still being practiced among many of the Native American and African indigenous peoples.

Most organized religions were started to eliminate this practice.

That's why when you read the Old Testament, it speaks so harsly against witches, wizards, and those who have "familiar spirits".

A familiar spirit is a FAMILY spirit of a deceased relative.