Ben Franklin would have banned gay or porn also.

First book order:
In 1732, the Company's first book order was sent to London. James Logan, secretary to William Penn, assisted in picking the books. He was considered "the best Judge of Books in these Parts." In addition to having the largest personal library in Pennsylvania, the learned Logan knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

Many of the earliest books in the Library's collection were either religious or educational tomes. But not all. As can be seen from other books donated by the Company's first members, there was an interest in politics, philosophy and business. Benjamin Franklin and others donated a number of works including A Collection of Several Pieces by John Locke and Plutarch's Morals. Franklin also donated his copy of Merchants Mappe of Commerce to the company. The books were kept in the librarian's lodgings.

https://theintercept.com/2022/08/25/student-loans-debt-reagan/

holds water. at the time, thought with derisive cyniscism 'why is he doing this? maybe he wants to be sure the GOP has enough voters!'

held that thought privately until it became obvious.

yeah. most enlightened (the truly bright) find education a gift that all people should be given. ben franklin, Andrew Carnegie, et al knew the deep effect of education on a people/nation/society.

'sides, doesn't do the US well to have hungry air force personnel mistakenly launch missiles when they thought the button said 'lunch'.

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

- Pastor Dave Barnhart at Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama

Definition of sanctimonious
1: hypocritically pious or devout

other considerations;
https://www.vasectomy.com/article/vasectomy/procedure/no-needle-vasectomy or even https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/vasalgel/

https://youtu.be/25JyC5Whhvc

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-americans-really-think-about-abortion/

remember the cute "my body my choice" covid 19 zinger?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7047e1.htm#:~:text=Pregnant%20women%20are%20at%20increased,1%E2%80%933)

folks like yourself weren't against late, late term abortions. i.e. grandma/pa

also a DYK https://dirtysexyhistory.com/2016/07/28/ancient-birth-control-silphium-and-the-origin-of-the-heart-shape/

Ever try to trick a dog w/the fake stick toss? Even they stop and scan to find evidence. (ours learned the ruse quickly)

spins my gourd that folks are SO EASILY misled by these fairy tales of teachers indoctrinating kids (yet, they can't get them to sit still, stop talking, or return materials on time); fears of giving citizens PSTD with known history (but explaining why 'person. woman. man. camera. tv' is NOT unsettling); or libraries can't be trusted to be run by librarians but the by the government (what were Ben Franklin and Andrew Carnegie thinking?)

look, boy! go get the stick! (no wonder all the anger. can't find it. but it has to be here!)

BTW: Roy and Silo thing is nuts. (not mentioned but peripheral involved) rather listen to John Oliver analyze "Air Bud". a lot less loopy.

Your video, The SHOCKING Truth About Ben Franklin and the Kite, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 271 Badge!

I always end up skeptical of videos/articles of this nature when I'm able to pick out inaccuracies based on my vast storehouse of useless knowledge. For example, Walton's Five and Dime was actually a Ben Franklin franchise. He was frustrated with the franchise agreement, which caused him to go independent and open the first WalMart.

No, I mentioned those few officers that had not seen the criminal action (and so not ignored it), they are just such a tiny minority that they are statistically insignificant. I gave them...and the non-corrupt forces an incredibly generous 10%, even though I believe the true measure is closer to <2%. I have yet to see an independent investigation of any police force that failed to find rampant criminal behavior force wide. I conceded that they likely do exist...somewhere...but they have yet to show themselves, and appear to be quite endangered if not extinct.
Whistleblowers do show up, but in such tiny numbers compared to total law enforcement that they statistically don't exist at all.
I understand that's your position, I just disagree. Ben Franklin was talking about private citizens VS law enforcement, and you have twisted it backwards. Those IN law enforcement have a higher duty to be honest, non-violent, non-criminals. Do you not agree? And please understand no one has suggested putting them all in prison based on a presumption of guilt...which is what Ben Franklin was talking about...the court of public opinion is a different matter. Also, in practice, assuming that all law enforcement is 'bad' and are untrustworthy liars actually lets far more innocent 'escape suffering', since they are the one's making the (often enough, false) charges. Just something to think about.

OK, let me try another tact. Do you think it's OK to put all members of a mafia crime family in prison, even though some may have done little more than honest accounting work? Well, I'm not suggesting prison, or even replacement, just meaningful, independent oversight EDIT:with real teeth. While I would LIKE to replace all officers (including the 'good' ones, let them all re-apply with stricter standards) and start fresh, I do see that that's not in any way reasonable or feasible...the best I can hope for is a change in behavior and a change in how we treat them...to one of zero tolerance for any professional malfeasance.
OK, once again, there is a statistically insignificant population of law enforcement that is totally 'pure' and not criminal. They exist. Because law enforcement as a group has become SO corrupt, they will be lumped in with the rest in public opinion until they prove themselves. There comes a point when the presumption of innocence is so damaged by a particular group of like minded individuals (which excludes by race, as a race is not 'like minded') that it no longer makes sense....and I'm far past that point. I now presume they are all trained liars (and I contend that's true, all of them, 100%, it's part of the job, and another way they're 'bad', but that's another discussion altogether) and that they'll lie to and about anyone they come in contact with. It's a terrible presumption to have to make about a group of people, but the only logical one to make since the alternative so overwhelmingly often leads to severe suffering for the innocent.

And you have to see that your claim of "no good cops" totally ignores those who have not yet witnessed any problem. Perhaps they're new to the force, perhaps they work in an honest precinct. But it's absurd to claim they don't exist. Whistleblowers -do- continue to show up, which is solid proof that some cops are not corrupt.

And yes, I absolutely do believe that tarring the good cops with the same brush is every bit as bad. "...better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer...", as Ben Franklin said. Moreover, if you want cops to be honest, it's completely counterproductive to blast them -all-, both good and bad, for being corrupt. Especially when not doing so is as simple as adding the word "most" or "many" to your bombastic claims. I really don't understand why you're fighting against being accurate in your statements. That's not how I've come to perceive you over the years.

How dare you quote Ben Franklin.

Slavery is irrelevant to the plight of the black man today.

All people have equal chance at freedom for the last 50 years.


Most poor folks would rather take government handouts than lift themselves out of poverty. If I was in that position I suppose I would also take the handout.



Democratic policies and Democratic control of major cities have destroyed the black community


Out of the 10 poorest cities
Five cities have been led by Democrats for more than 45 years.
Two other cities, Miami, El Paso, have never had Republican mayors. Not ever.

Poverty
Rank City Democrat
Since
1 Detroit, MI 1961
2 Buffalo, NY 1954
3 Cincinnati, OH 1984
4 Cleveland, OH 1989
5 Miami, FL forever
6 St. Lewis, MO 1949
7 El Paso, TX forever
8 Milwaukee, WI 1908
9 Philadelphia, PA 1952
10 Newark, NJ 1907

Democratic policies and Democratic control of major cities have destroyed the black community.

If you want to help end racism and help black communities turn around then stop voting democrat.

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."
... Ben Franklin

You're seemingly bothered by the semantic difference between "gives" and "grants" or "guarantees". Guarantees would have been a better word, but the idea that this is "indoctrination" in ...what exactly?...seems silly and totally reactionary.
Read "Miracle In Philadelphia", it gives a GREAT idea of what went on, along with tons of details mostly unknown.
EDIT: For instance, did you know that Ben Franklin was often carried in on a 'sedan chair' (or it's non-covered equivalent) carried by prisoners on 'work release'?!
While the bill of rights does use that wording, it's the government that secures those rights FOR you...or to say it another way, 'gives' you (security in them).
"Power", in the form of the continental congress, "Gave" you those rights (EDIT: by codifying them in our laws and our basic outline for government/governing). I say they are certainly NOT "god given inalienable rights" which is proven by the fact that many people do NOT have them around the world. If they were truly "god given inalienable rights", they could not be removed or ignored by anyone, could they?
It may be poor wording, but indoctrination? Come on. What are the Texas School Boards "history" text books then? Now THEY re-write history.

"Make the United States safer". Oh, ffs. Anyone else immediately think of Ben Franklin when you hear this bullshit line? I'll trade a 9/11 and a Boston bombing every decade for the governement staying the hell out of my phone and my computer. (Omg, am I starting to sound like goptea'er?). This crap that Obama spewed the other night, roughly "you can't have both 100% security and 100% privacy", is the ol' statue-of-liberty play. He's implying that these programs provide 100% security. You can dismiss everything he says after that because his premise is FALSE. You can dismiss everything he said before that as well, but that's another rant.

And Mika, you can't demand a "yes or no" answer when you just don't want to hear the explanation. There is a very good reason why you weren't paid as much as Joe, and you should thank your lucky stars they still let you read the intros. And stop with the huffing and tsk'ing and eyerolls. You're starting to look and sound llike one of those shrill FOX "analysts".

Willie, what a dumb question. Of course there is a difference between state secrets that do not inpinge on our freedoms and rights of privacy and those that do, you knob. Some would even say the ultimate purpose of maintaining state secrets is to assist in protecting the very American freedoms and rights that are being grossly abused by these programs. The difference between Manning and Snowden is that Manning exposed warcrimes and other abuses being committed on brown people, and Snowden exposed an invasive, Orwellian-level spying and data-mining infrastructure being used on Americans by our own government. So yeah, a little different. So what? Both heroes. And it infuriates me when our government goes after them and tries to paint them as treasonists. They have committed no crimes against America because the government is not America. It's straight-up self-preservation, and has nothing to do with protecting the citizens of this country and the tenets on which this country was founded. What Manning and Snowden did, however, does.

There was once a time when democracies around the world, whether imminent, new, or struggling, could look to the US for inspiration. Now, we could learn much today from a country like Turkey. They get it. It took a few whacks with police batons, and lots and lots of tear-gas, but they get it now. They get beat down, and get smarter and angrier. We just get dumber and dumber no matter what this government says or does.

“The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other in opposite directions.”
― George Carlin

“Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!”
― Bill Hicks

>> ^liverpoolfc:

You claim Police stopping people for random breath testing will lead to all that paranoid crap i'm not going to bother repeating.
If you think police performing random traffic stops to catch drunk-drivers is a dangerous thing I feel sorry for you and the state America is in.
I'm not British but i'd put money on you being a Republican. I'm not afraid of my Government or police force - clearly you are.

You're desperate to paint me as illogical but to me it just looks like you have poor reading comprehension. I don't claim random stops will lead to those other things. I claim that if the government felt they could get away with it, they would do those things.

EDIT: Some people don't understand what liberty and freedom is. I'm not anti-cop or even anti-government. Again, not any more than Ben Franklin or anyone else who gives it a LOT of thought. Randomly stopping people who are just going about their lives to assert your authority by shining flashlights in their eyes and interrogating them, which puts some people into weeks long spirals of panic and paranoia completely unrelated to any actual criminal culpability, is not harmless or purely protective.

Yea, I hate to say it, but the left really seems to have no idea how convoluted and potentially dangerous legislating this issue is. Diogenes is on the right track, and even (gasp) GeeSussFreeK gets it. We aren't concerned with whether or not a corporation can hand over billions of dollars to a campaign. That seems relatively straightforward. At issue is whether a corporation can buy a billion dollars worth of advertisements perceived to be supporting a particular candidate or position. Once you put it like that, it seems much dicier. Who decides whether an ad is political if it isn't expressly stated that way? How could we even effectively limit that sort of activity without risking limitations on legitimate political speech? I mean, do we want to tell the Audubon Society they can't run advocacy campaigns in an election year? Or do we just want to tell people they can't donate to the Audubon Society in an election year? See the problem?

The fact is money has always been a factor in amplifying speech. It's one of the reasons Ben Franklin was so powerful (via his control of the presses). However the first amendment was enshrined anyway. Now, I still sympathize with the notion that something is wrong with our political process, and it looks to be something like green paper with president's faces on it. However, a means to effectively fixing it without severe (potentially worse) unintended consequences is still a mystery to me.