search results matching tag: franklin

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (121)     Sift Talk (4)     Blogs (8)     Comments (249)   

C-note (Member Profile)

newtboy (Member Profile)

newtboy (Member Profile)

The Hamilton Mixtape: Immigrants (We Get The Job Done)

bobknight33 says...

The US did turn away a ship under those conditions Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was president at the time..

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

StukaFox said:

I have an honest question for you: would you have turned away the Jews escaping the Holocaust because, according to quotas on Jews at the time, their entry into the US would have been considered illegal?

The Disturbing History of the Suburbs

bobknight33 says...

In the name to help Americans we get another Democrat program to keep the black man down.

Even after Republicans ended Democratic controlled slavery. Democrats still find ways to oppress.

Democrat policies have done more to hurt the black man than any other cause.


Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a reputation as a friend of black people, yet he signed laws that promoted racial segregation throughout the United States.

When will you sifters learn... Democrats are the enslaving party.

Betsy Devos Embarrassed by Sen. Al Franken

newtboy says...

Franklin, as an ELECTED public servant, has consistently represented his constituents well enough to be re-elected.
Betsy Devos has never held office, never run a loan organization, never run an educational business, been hyper critical of the department she is tapped to run, and doesn't understand the issues this office entails at all, much less have a grasp of the details involved in the life changing decisions she'll be in charge of making, AND she refuses to answer questions when she knows her answers look terrible AND she has not yet finished her application (they've conveniently ignored the ethics forms nominees fill out BEFORE they get a hearing, so she shouldn't receive a hearing at all yet, like the rest of the nominees, which clearly indicates they have something to hide that would disqualify them all). In fact, it's obvious that she's only been nominated because her family bought the post with $200,000,000 in donations to Republicans and her vocal push to privatize education (but not it's funding, leaving us with something like our quasi-privatized prison system), meaning the Republicans plan to hand her the post with no real hearings and no matter how incompetent and unprepared she is....she already bought it, the hearings are just a formality.
...so no, not at all the same.

bobknight33 said:

SNL writer Al Franken to be senator is the same as Betsy Devos being in charge of Education.

ant (Member Profile)

Franklin, The Dog, Swimming in Air

Will Smith slams Trump

slickhead says...

No joke. First, Christan politicians of various denominations from various churches holding office in a secular country with a godless constitution is vastly different than when the church controlled king and country all over the western world. Our founding fathers saw to that. The church's power has been in decline for centuries thanks to luminaries like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson. The church has never regained anything like the power it held for the centuries before "the Age of Enlightenment". Source: any world history book. Second, we don't have any idea how many of today's politicians are atheist/agnostic or simple deists because in most places saying so is a sure fire way not to get elected. They wouldn't dare say if they were, but seeing as how most politicians receive a higher education and how higher education leads to a higher rate of atheism, I'd wager the rate of atheist politicians is higher than in the general population. Third, I never said there wasn't a Christian majority in the US. To begin with, I was speaking about the decline of the church's power globally. I shouldn't have to tell you the world has more countries than the United States. With the global economy this distinction (you are too inept to make) is more important now than ever.

The only one of us who should be ashamed is the one with absolutely no sense of perspective. The one who will dismiss the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism because "Christians do bad stuff too!!! WAAAA!" To be clear, the one who should be ashamed will be you, NewtBOY.

newtboy said:

You MUST be joking.
Christians don't have overwhelming political power?!
What color is the sky in your universe?

How many publicly atheist elected officials in the federal government can you name? How many "Christians"? Now think about what you've said and feel ashamed.

Consequences! - GTA IV

Disturbing Muslim 'Refugee' Video of Europe

shang says...

Well if you hate your country then try and fix it.
I love mine, and I hate some of the problems we got, but I'd never go anywhere else. If enemies try to attack us, then don't whine when we retaliate. And yes we've had a technical coup de tat during Roosevelt era, he ignored the standard 2 terms and stayed in 4 terms, 16 years instead of 8. It was after him that a new amendment was formed to force the 2 term limitation as before it was a honored tradition only stated verbally by George Washington, and kept until Roosevelt, then a law had to be made to stop it from happening again. Since he abused it.

become a hactivist, if you don't want to take up arms. learn sql injection, xss attacks, and use wikileaks to expose things and force changes. Or if the majority is fed up then the people have the right to coup de tat.

If you don't like how Americans on a whole do things, then in your router block the American CIDR. Go to Arin.net and you can easily firewall the entire country so you'll never see another Amercan based website again.

While I may dislike certain policies or even hate my president and disagree with occasional supreme court ruling. There's 3 things I'd have zero problems dying for. First I'd die for my son, I'd die to defend myself and my home, and I'd die for my country.
The American dream can never be destroyed, no matter how retarded and uneducated the 'political correct' mongs try, or any whining, or anything at all, will never change the American way of life.

I'll let a few founding fathers' quotes explain the ferocity of the "American way of life". I would never want to live anywhere else.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation on Earth."
- James Madison

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom... go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams; 1776


and in response to people like you who attack what we say/do/etc for not being "political correct" or whatever made up phobia they want to use this week.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

artician said:

I hate my country specifically because it intrudes on other peoples countries. Fuck countries. The American "way of life" is dependent on invading and taking natural resources from other countries. The US has alternatives to killing, but they dismiss them because it's inconvenient.

You can't claim that people are free to stick to their own country when your own country invades, kills and tries to control theirs.
That is why people fly planes into your buildings.

Disturbing Muslim 'Refugee' Video of Europe

shang says...

You wouldn't like my resolution.

Course main reason majority of Americans are against it is our culture and heritage. Americans have never ran. During British rule we didn't run to Louisiana territory begging Spain or France to accept refuges. We took up arms and bled for our land. Patriotism is not bad as political correctness morons try to push.

That's why for us, or many of us, refugee makes no sense. And our forefathers even exclaimed if any Americans became refugees they deserved no country, our creed "give me liberty or give me death!" The 2nd amendment left behind by our founders to ensure a free society.

"We need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years. " - Benjamin Franklin

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

The word refugee makes absolutely zero sense to Americans. At least me being Generation X and all my generation and older. You do not run you die fighting. The beginning of the Revolution Americans didn't have hardly any weapons, it was sabotage and terrorism and the capture of gun stockpiles by militias the armed the beginning, then France helped supply us.

They should right, but the proof is they are not refugees! That's media political correctness lies. Just as said in that video
Quote by Muslim - "this isn't refugees, this is invasion"
They use political correctness as a shield to get in.

Daylight Saving Time 101

Woman Executed by Cop Because She “Might Be Smoking Pot"

newtboy says...

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.

Stormsinger said:

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.

Woman Executed by Cop Because She “Might Be Smoking Pot"

Stormsinger says...

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.

newtboy said:

OK, but you must see that if, once a cop behaves 'good' they are no longer cops, that means there are no cops actually being good?
Tarring those extremely few, only momentarily 'good cops' (since as soon as they're 'good' they are no longer allowed to be cops) with the same tar as the 'bad' cops is NO WHERE NEAR the level of evil that protecting murderers, violent thugs, thieves, kidnappers, etc. is. Please. Be reasonable. It may be slightly unfair, but not even in the same league of wrong as protecting murderers from prosecution.
If you are for locking up bad cops, including those that cover up crimes, you must concede that that means 90%+ of cops need replacing, right? (I think I'm being incredibly generous to allow the possibility that 10% aren't complicit, I think the real number is closer to 2%).
I have explained why they are all complicit/participants. There is evidence that they, at best, turn a blind eye to the bad one's, and more likely/often actively help the 'bad' ones escape prosecutions. The only way they aren't 'turning the blind eye' to their fellow officers almost daily is they are so inept they actually don't notice their fellow officers being criminal...so they're also 'bad' cops...in this instance meaning ineffectual cops. MmmmK?



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon