Pioneer1

The devil made you do it huh...? In YOUR case, that's known as SELF-CONTROL....lol. That's not some "black Moses", that's a painting of a Moor. I might end up changing that avatar again because I don't like how that picture presents itself.

Chev This is an impossible statement to go any farther with you because, what you are saying is that, even though we as humans die off and leave writen works, it cannot be trusted as being authentic based on any 'measurable standard'. No it can't. Even COURTS are hesitant to believe human eye witnesses! So why are we to believe that human record keeping is INFALLIBLE? LOL this is unbelievable statement. You just stated that a group of scribes and scholars got together on your version of how the Talmud was eventually written, but cannot realize that would be the very process in the written conclusion of the end of the life of Moses!?  ????? I didn't say that this DID NOT happen. They actually DID do this! I just said Moses wasn't the one doing it. Your all over the place, and have no fixed dates from which to base anything on Lol...I'm not all over the place. I'm firm and consistent as far as history goes....don't put too much trust in ANY of it. You need to provide some evidence that the author of the Songs of Solomon was not him. You are shooting in the dark. Lol, I JUST showed you in Songs of Solomon chapter 1 it says: "5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. " The author speaks of the curtains OF Solomon. How could this be Solomon speaking unless he's talking about himself in the second person????? But if you want further evidence....here are more verses: Song of Solomon 1:2 "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine." The author says let HIM kiss ME with HIS mouth. If Solomon wrote this song as you claim are you saying he is asking that a MAN kiss him??? What about Song of Solomon 2:6 " His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me." Do you STILL believe Solomon wrote this??? Come on. That would mean that Ezra was writing about something that happened over a thousand years prior! Yes. That's exactly what he did. In Deuteronomy Chapter 34:10 the author of the Penateuch says: "Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, 11 who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. 12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel." He says "since then"....meaning the author was presently speaking ABOUT the past. Now although a date isn't set, obviously he's speaking of past events as he's compiling these scriptures. It's also evidence that MOSES DID NOT WRITE THIS BOOK which is part of the Pentateuch, because it's talking about him and speaking from a LATER date! What earlier documents? What earlier published documents could Ezra have possibly used that the man, Moses did or that the Egyptians did? Did Ezra use the Egyptian documents? Can you provide some kind of dated document that Ezra could have used? BTW, I think Ezra lived after the downfall of the NeoBabylonian empire. Ezra lived in Babylon DURING and AFTER the fall of the Babylonian empire but WHILE it was controled by King Cyrus and the Persians. And although I'm not exactly sure of ALL the documents he used, I'm sure he used many of the documents that the Babylonians themselves had for their own religion AS WELL AS the documents the Zoroastrians had. Biblical scholars know full well that the "Flood myth" existed among other cultures like the Babylonians and Persians and these earlier stories were believed to be used in making the Pentateuch while in Babylon. 　 The Bible gives a detailed timeline of the kings over Israel and Jewry. The Bible gives NO DATES. The dates were given LATER ON after the so-called "events" took place and were for the most part guesses. We don't KNOW Moses existed 1500 B.C....that's just a commonly accepted estimate. 　 　 Troy Yes I understand. The ONLY reasons you consider my statement crazy is because Western science or more specifically Caucasian Archeologists whom you have faith and trust in haven't confirmed it YET. If......next year or in 15 years they came out and said that humanity is TRILLIONS of years old, THEN you would believe. I admit that I have no proof of MY beliefs about history....because it's HISTORY and nobody today was around to actually witness what happened to verify it, but YOU won't acknowledge the same and are dead SURE that everything these "getting drunk on the weekend" scientists tell you is the gospel truth beyond dispute....LOL.

Here we go again...... Two AfroAmerican men fighting and arguing with eachother over what SOMEONE ELSE said or believes is the truth or the right thing, lol. Man I hope you read the recent thread I wrote and not simply dismiss it as some rambling rant.

Actually it wasn't so much YOUR statement as much as DEL'S reaction that reminded me of what I was planning to do a thread about on this site for about a week now. Especially after seeing how much that Bishop at Aretha Franklin's funeral was condemned by so many other people including other AfroAmerican men. It's disturbing how almost every demographic seems to stick together more than AfroAmerican men do. Something YOU know all too well and use to your advantage on a routine basis....lol.

The words are different and obviously have different meanings BUT.....one meaning can fit INSIDE the other while the other can't. Just like the words FRUIT and APPLE are two different words but one definition can fit inside the other. All Apples are Fruits but not all Fruits are Apples........some fruits are Pears and some are Bananas. All Republics are Oligarchies but not all Oligarchies are Republics.....some Oligarchies are Theocracies and others are Plutocracies

Chev 　 You don't even believe scholars like the late Ivan Van Sertima? Yes, I DO trust him...more than many others. But you have to understand that when it comes to history you can't put too much trust in ANY human beings unless they were there to witness things themselves. You just have to decide who is more trustworthy based on your past dealings with their work along with your own common sense. can you offer a reference? Probably, but not right now. who then wrote the Pentatuch? A number of scribes and scholars convened to put it together while the Jews were still in Babylon but I believe the project was spearheaded by a man named Ezra. It was compiled from many earlier documents. Moses CERTAINLY didn't write it because his own death and what happened afterwards was recorded in one of the books! There is nothing that states the book was written by anyone other than Solomon. So if you don't believe that then, that is where the contention rest. There is no need to go beyond this point unless you can provide evidence that the author is who you say. Lol...all you have to do is just READ the book to realize that it wasn't written by Solomon but by a WOMAN. Just read it. But you can also do online research on it's history as well. Speaking of which, you do realize that Minister Louis Farrakhan admitted that the matriarch of this following is a White woman? I'm not sure what you mean. According to Nation of Islam theology the mother of Fard Muhammad was a Caucasian woman. Is that what you're refering to?

Chev You are too much! LOL. That is not what I meant! lol! What if another man did that to her in your presence? You wouldn't be offended if she came and told you another man groped her? And, what if she was your wife? Ofcourse I wouldn't like it in either scenario. But that's just basic male jealousy and territorialism. It's not a legal issue. Now you've got me confused. Are you saying the term is correct to say 'Original man'? And, it is not correct to say 'Original mankind?' In another thread you used the term 'ORGINAL BLACK POPULATION'; how is this different from saying 'ORiginal mankind'? Both Original Man and Original Black Population are correct terms. But because "mankind" means a KIND of man or a COPY of a man, it shouldn't be used along with "original" because mankind is NOT original. . The term "mankind" should only be used when refering to Caucasians and no other race. Yes, in terms of 'the Original Population of people that lived in Greek lands' many of the Greeks were Black. Terms like 'DORIAN GREEKS', 'MINOAN GREEKS', 'CARIAN GREEKS', 'DANAANS', 'THEBAN GREEKS', ... and so many other terms define the ORIGINAL POPULATIONS in those Isles and mainlands of the European continent. The Ionian Greeks though and many others were definitely White Greeks. Some of the Greek pottery reveals these people, but I am not an Art History expert to be able to respond completely from that point-of-view. HOMER time period and the script on this wise also reveals this earlier presence too. OK I understand what you're saying now.....and I think I agree. It's probably a matter of semantics because I believe the ORIGINAL PEOPLE OF THAT LAND that is now called "Greece" was indeed Black.....but the actual GREEKS themselves were not. Just like the original inhabitants of THE LAND CALLED ARABIA were Black....while the actual Arabs were not. In other words the first people of that area WERE Black, but we have to be careful using the current name of the Caucasian peoples who currently occupy the land and applying THAT name to the original peoples of that land who probably went by a different name. Although I must admit.....not being the sharpest tool in the shed, lol....I'm STILL not quite understanding where you're coming from on "ethnic women" being used to bring down the old Black kingdoms.

Del The US is a nominal republic and practical oligarchy. That doesn't mean all republics are oligarchies. You're right that the United States is a PRACTICAL oligarchy. And I said NEARLY all PRACTICAL Republics are Oligarchies.....simply to leave the possibility open that a Republic that is NOT an Oligarchy does indeed exist....although I haven't thought of one. If you had said the US functions like an oligarchy even though it's a republic. You would have made a subtle distinction. I could STILL say that and not even contradict myself because both ideas agree. It functions like an Oligarchy because it IS an Oligarchy...and a Republic at the same time because the Oligarchs are just elected to rule the masses. It's as clear as day to me. Perhaps you and Troy have run out of ways to convince me otherwise....lol.

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???

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.

She's a card playing chain smoking alcoholic who ALSO likes to argue. LOL....why am I NOT surprised?

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.

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.