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.

The Love of Christ everyone. A continuing shinning example of why I hate the faith. Treat others as you'd have others treat you. Anyhow, I agree, no need for a ban, at least yet, though that is a new low, but in line with the rest of the Trump supporters. It again, just shows how evil and vile the faith is, because that's what they actually think Christ would act like, do and say, and have zero conviction in their heart otherwise. The modern right is the biggest reason cited why people leave the faith or are turned off by the faith, so the more Trump supporters dig in, the more and more people will leave the faith. Hopefully they'll turn to reason, or Paganism, anything but stick to a faith where they are happy at the death of a man who served his nation far better than the man they praise. As to Bob himself, I don't know if he's just a troll or what, my issue has never been with him, but the faith he represents. I am surrounded by people like him at home and work, and it isn't the people, it's their faith... sort of like how they say of the gays, "love the sinner hate the sin", I just hate everything about them, but I'm sure they are just fine people otherwise.

While I didn't like McCain, I at least respected his service. I respect the fact that he REFUSED to leave the POW camp when it was offered to him because there were others there before him, and he'd go on for another four plus years more of torture because of his refusal. He could have left the service long before he was even shot down, as he was injured on the deck of his ship when he was accidentally shot by another plane on the deck, an indecent that killed 134 other sailors and injured 161 others, himself included... of course many on the far right blame him for somehow being shot in that case and say he caused the deaths... As bad as he was on his political philosophy and the whole Palin thing (which I agree with what was pointed out already, was an attempt to lure the far right and women voters, and it worked on the far right, he probably wouldn't have got nearly as many votes as he did without her, because the narrative had already shifted far right on Fox and talk radio), he at least served and didn't dodge service because of a bone spur.

And this video just goes to show how gullible people are, "he's a Muslim" and he has to refute it. He has to keep saying how good Obama is as a man, and how true to himself he is, but they boo him. They are so wrapped up in the Fox and talk radio narrative, and their little social media bubbles, they don't know how to vet things they see and hear... they may do a quick Google search, not realizing that Google changes its search results to match what you'll find most agreeable... and then even if they do see a link they disagree with, they'll ignore it, find ones they like and coddle their bias.... I should know, I was among them for far too long. Up until basically this 2008 election, where I moved from Republican to supporting Paul, to supporting Obama, then loosing my faith shortly after the election because of the far right's actions...

@newtboy

i think what bcglorf is suggesting,and correct me if i am wrong bc,is that the ideological intolerance that is permeating the far left,and creeping into the current media narrative...is turning people away from the left and driving them further right.

that how the ultra-left deals with criticism by labeling ALL criticism as an attack,and not a functioning dynamic of dialogue,is counter-productive and again..drives people further right.

so what is a moderate to do?

on the alt-right they have a choice of a grotesque and vulgar racist political philosophy akin to the "aryan supremacy" of the 30's dressed up as nationalism and patriotism.

and on the alt-left they have an equally grotesque group who subvert freedoms and liberties all in the name of "equality" and "tolerance".while single-handedly being the most intolerant of them all.

fascists to the left of me..
fascists to the right..
and here i am..
stuck in the middle...

ok,that is not fair,i adore that piece from the oatmeal but it really does not apply to this current discussion.

at least in my case,and my commentary.(i do not want to speak for anybody else).

i simply was using the very same metric prager was using to make HIS point,and turned it upon itself,because his logic is obviously biased,and flawed.i was using HIS parameters to come to a different conclusion.

i am not coming from ideological standpoint.i was simply pointing out the flaw in his logic.my own,personal biases and prejudices,have nothing to do with my conclusions.

so what exactly is unbelievable?

that people pointed out that his argument is weak,facile and totally without merit? do you think this is due to some partisan bias? some emotional adherence to an economic or political system?

or maybe his conflation of a socio-economic political system and murderous,despotic tyrants was an incredibly weak tactic to make the argument that communism was "evil".

now you are free to believe whatever you wish,and maybe you think that communism is actually "evil",but if that is the case,then i would suggest that you do not utilize the tactic prager uses in this video,because HIS argument is incredibly weak and flawed,and easily de-bunked.

personal biases and predjudices have nothing to do with this mans shitty argument.

and no offense mate,but countering that people disagreeing with this video is somehow due their own partisan,political philosophy,is just as weak as pragers shitty argument.

prager made a shitty argument,based on extremely flawed logic,in order to push his own biased agenda.we exposed that flaw,plain and simple.

political affiliation had nothing to do with it.

@newtboy

i agree with pretty everything you said,but in rubins defense,that is what they identify themselves as.

but i agree,both those who identify as either liberal or conservative need to call out the bullshit when people claim they represent a certain political philosophy.

@worm
thanks for your input ron swanson!

your comment exemplifies that our own,personal politics tend to reside somewhere in the middle.
that is where the majority of us reside,and your comment is a literal macrocosm of the federalist papers.

federal vs state power.

which is a great discussion.

but that's not what we get ..is it?

we get a circus of buffoonery,cult of celebrity,and all conversation occur in this weird "twitter speak".

the art of discussion and debate has been traded for faux outrage and sanctimonious moralizing.to even admit that an opposing political philosophy has a good idea is tantamount to treason.

compromise is now viewed as weakness,and not common sense.

the extreme left and right have hi-jacked this countries national discussion,NOT because they both have put forth such amazing ideas,but rather it makes for good television.

and i say this as a person who holds many "left" ideals.i am a fucking anarchist for fuck sakes!

donald trump winning this years surreal election cycle is only a symptom of the disease eating away at our republic.

in my opinion?
both the democrats and republicans have become monolithic institutions that no longer represent their core ideals,having sold their soul to their corporate masters.

and while i can respect the republicans for being open on who they prostituted themselves to,the democrats STILL play the "feel your pain" tripe while simultaneously giving exxon a tugjob under the table.

the extreme left and right do not represent the majority.
and they should be ridiculed and shamed for their utter lack of anything resembling a good idea.

let's kill them.

@newtboy

not to butt my nose in...
ah who am i kidding..of course i am going to butt my nose in.

you and space are getting caught up on definitions.
neo-conservative which is a fairly new political philosophy from the 1960's by irving kristol,whose name you may recognize as bill-the bloody- kristol (weekly standard) father.

prior to neoconservatism was.../drum roll
neoliberalism.

the fundamental difference is what you alluded to newt,but in my opinion were far too gracious in your definition.
while neoconservatism is far more hawkish,seeing american and "manifest destiny" as her right,and being a global power has a right to use that power to serve her interests,even if that be way of military force.the ultimate goal is to spread american excellence to the world in the form of markets.we sell our awesome and they buy,and we extract what we need for our interests a.k.a business baby.

neoliberalism may be more "dovish" but the goals are the same:political and financial dominance.

and the results are very similar as well.
so while neoliberalism may use economic hitmen,the IMF and the GTO to impose the will of american buisiness,and the neoconservatives may rely on the military heavily..

countries are still stripped of their resources,their labor exploited and a starbucks on every corner.their sovereignty is more a suggestion than an actual respective entity.

both philosophies are abhorrent and destructive and cause incredible suffering....and death.

i am super high right now,so if i misread your guys conflict..please forgive.
if i read it right and helped..
you are welcome!

@bobknight33

the reasons why blacks tend to vote for democrats for the past 50 years is not a mystery and it has been long understood.

labor unions.

the democrats saw the power that was arising from americas labor unions and decided to shift their message to appeal to this growing demographic.

just like the republicans co-opted the evangelicals in the late 70's.

this is about political power,plain and simple and little to nothing to do with actual political philosophy.

this is the second video you have posted today where you appear to be trying to make a case for the republicans,and the presenters are offering a seriously edited,cherry picked and manipulative picture of history.when the history is quite clear.

this is not a republican/democratic dynamic.
this is a power vs powerlessness dynamic.
this is about retaining power at any cost.
to the detriment of our society.

and it is not exactly a secret,but these videos you have posted are a disservice to those who may not know,which it appears,may include you bob.

@billpayer

i dont really understand your attack tactics.
what does it serve?
@A10anis may be many things,but stupid and ignorant are not one of them.
he/she just has a different perspective on things.which @dannym3141 addressed quite succinctly,and respectfully.

i actually agree with many of your posts and i happen to like and respect russell brand for having the balls to stand up for the little guy,but i cannot respect when you presume to know someones political philosophy based on so little.

are you aware that you are using the very same tactics that rabid,rightwing nutters use?
it is so easy to dismiss someone when you can demonize them.
we all become so much easier to manipulate and control when we all buy into the over-simplifed tropes of :conservative/liberal,which are both viewed as dirty words and insults and is a massive success for the propaganda state.

the argument is never conservative versus liberal,those are just labels used to beat us over the head with and paint a divisive line in the sand.where people can take sides and throw poop at each other.it serves nothing and no one besides those who wish to dominate and control.

no,the argument is always power vs powerlessness.

but nothing will ever be gained if we stick to the narrative being fed to us by the very same power structure that wishes us to remain compliant and subservient to a system that no longer serves the population.

so attacking @A10anis 's point of view and opinion,presuming his level of knowledge based on almost nothing,will gain you nothing but perpetuate the very power system that holds us all down.

have to give respect to receive respect.

@bcglorf
this assumes there will be no consequences for breaking the rules or no structure in place to enforce those rules.this implies that if their WAS no enforcement,everybody would spend the entire day robbing,raping and causing mayhem.

so you are right,the base argument is indeed intellectually dishonest,but is also not an argument FOR a militarized police force.the real arguments is the laws themselves.

start with more humane and common sense laws and the need for a massive police force becomes irrelevant.

in an anarchal system it is the people who are the representatives who create legislation.
lets take the iraq war of 2003,where the american people were overwhelmingly against going into iraq..yet we still invaded.representative democracy? not a shot.
or in 2008 when the american people,in a massive majority,rejected the bailout and wished to see the perpetrators held accountable.well? what happened? i think you know.

anarchism is a varied and dynamic political view.its not just one simple flavor.do you see trance and i agreeing on much?my politics over-laps with trance but it does with @newtboy and @ChaosEngine as well.

the basic gist is individual liberty trumps everything and that the structures put in place should be temporary and be directed from the bottom up,not the top down.we realize that we live in a society populated by people and it should be the people who direct where that society should be going.we have no need or use for "leaders" or "rulers" and when the "representatives" have obviously jumped the shark to whore to their donors,it is time to question/criticize the system and not just replace the crack whore with a meth whore.

anarchy is simply a political philosophy,thats it.

so we would see:
zero wars of aggression
no more criminalized drug addicts or poor people
no more corporate welfare
and most likely the people would vote out the federal reserve and print its own currency.

anarchists prefer direct democracy but will accept representative if they are actually being represented.(though begrudgingly).

you should read up on some anarchy.you may find some very food ideas and while not a perfect political philosophy,the one thing it does offer that i find most appealing:if it aint working...vote it out.

@newtboy: "I WAS libertarian before the Teabaggers insanity infected them and they became the party of NO government."

Hmmmmmm. Seems specious. Are you talking about the Libertarian Party? Or the Republican Party, which is where the Tea Party's political affiliations are aligned? Because you do realize there's a different between small "l" libertarians, which is the political philosophy, and big "L" Libertarians, which is the party... and Tea Partiers, which are Republicans.


"The owners of corporations may derive some legal shielding thanks to their relationship with government and/or the law regarding who/what is legally responsible for who/what's actions, they are not creations of it in the way he insists."

Some legal shielding? Which of these corporate protections offered and legitimized by the government is "some" of the shielding? Is it the limited liability, wherein BP was able to cause billions of dollars in damage, but because US law protects corporate liability, they only had to pay in the hundred of millions? Or the corporate tax loopholes? Or the corporate welfare they receive in taxpayer subsidies? Or how too-big-to-fail corps have their loses socialized by us, and their wins privatized?

Because that seems more than just "some legal shielding."

Oh Bob, how I envy you. The world must be such a nice place if you can view it only in black or white. Binary thinking must be easy on the synapses.
Here's one thing I don't understand, though. Maybe you can help me out.
Why do you hate liberty so much?
I mean, you're an american, right? Land of the free, home of the brave?
Home of the Liberty Bell? The country whose most famous landmark is called the "Statue of Liberty".
Why so much hate the most american thing? I always wanted to asked somebody who's so obviously republican as you.
Here's something I found on Wikipedia:
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."

Hmmm... generally supporting following ideas:
- free and fair elections (voter id laws and voting fraud prevention)
- civil rights (Dude! Don't tread on me!)
- freedom of the press (concern about lamestream media and "liberal bias" in the media)
- freedom of religion (for example the freedom of teaching children creationism)
- free trade (capitalism yay!)
- private property (for some reason the name "Ron Jeremy" came to mind but I think I got the name wrong)

I can understand a dislike for equality (come on, slaves are super useful) but not for liberty. Not if you're a true american.

Shouldn't you call yourself a liberal? Is it just a weird closet you're in?

And what you just said was relevant to anything other than your own narrow preconceived notions of what is or is not a worthwhile use of someone's time and property?

What I was doing was taking your initial argument and demonstrating the absurdity at it's core by extrapolating it's logical consequences. This is what one does when one has been taught to argue at a level beyond pre-school debating classes. I haven't just "read some Chomsky" I have spent my entire academic career studying Philosophy and linguistics/rhetoric.

Chomsky and I actually disagree on many things & frankly the fact you would choose him and not say Jacques Fresco, Jean Jacques Rousseau or Slavoj Zizek etc. with whom my beliefs have a much greater affinity suggest that you yourself have a paper thin grounding in the political and philosophical subjects you are trying to pull me up on. (and to be clear I don't fully agree with any of those people either, my political philosophy is based upon my own conclusions built up over years of study and consideration)


So lets be clear, generating $7000 of income is to you a pointless activity? (a point you have consistently refused to acknowledge as it undermines your entire argument). What about trying to entertain people? Are all attempts at comedy fruitless because they didn't make YOU laugh?

"Immature", "funny" and "necessary" are all highly subjective concepts.

Clearly YOU didn't find it funny, others (about 7 fucking million in fact!) did.

Clearly YOU thought the video creator lacked maturity, plenty of people would regard his sense of timing, context and dare I say it low level satire as indicative of a potentially very mature and cognicent individual. (not saying he is but the evidence supports either notion)

But most of all NOTHING in the universe is demonstrably necessary, not even the universe itself. The very concept of necessity or usefulness is entirely subjective in it's nature. We as humans invented it, nature has no such qualms, it simply exists and continues to do so (unless you wan't to bring God into this at which point my eyes will likely glaze over).

This did start as your observation regarding the "pointless" destruction of a phone, an observation I was suggesting had it's basis in little more than your own narrow preconceptions about what is and is not a laudable use of ones time and resources.

The point about other evils in the world was an (unsuccessful) attempt to point out the absurdity of getting your knickers in a twist about something so trivial it's almost funny. What you consider a serious problem on the global level specifically is less important than the simple fact that this dude smashing up a phone is utterly negligible by comparison to virtually anything one might care to mention. The best counter you have here far as I can see is to suggest that everything is pointless/subjective which would naturally be totally self defeating. (or to backtrack and redefine your position as one of mere distaste and aesthetic preference rather than an objective truth as you did)

Maybe your a Randist or an anarcho-capitalist or something. That's fine and while I might disagree with the premise of those positions their proponents would support my core notion just the same. i.e. getting angry and this dude smashing up his phone is by a country mile the most inconsequential and asinine point of contention in this whole discussion.


Also to be clear, I utterly reject the entire notion of the left/right wing paradigm and you're attempt to once again put my argument in a box of your own design (i.e. straw man again) is not going to work.

I'm not anti capitalist I'm anti Nepotism and Cronyism. My own ideas about how to fix the world involve both capitalist and socialist principles (along with replacing "democracy" with "meritocracy"). If you had enquired further rather than just generalising my suggestions into a straw man to support your own argument you may have had the opportunity to realise this and engage with the ideas intellectually (rather than as a reactionary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Learn to think critically instead of dressing up your own prejudices as objective facts (and attacking the arguer instead of the argument itself).

Some might consider an inability to separate subjective preconceptions from objective facts a far greater sign of immaturity. One of the reasons children are considered immature is because they cannot tell or control where their own Ego stops and other peoples begin. (though naturally this is itself a subjective notion and should probably never be defined as an objective truth either)

I don't expect you to respond like a Harvard professor but please at least engage with the content of the argument rather than painting me into a box and trying to assassinate my character. I'm sure you're probably a reasonably intelligent person and I'm always happy to back down or take back arguments if I'm presented with a well thought out reason why I might be wrong etc.

you do realize that anarchism is incredibly diverse right?
it is not some rigid dogmatic approach to structural societies.
the political philosophy can stem from a strict individualism to a pure collectivism,yet both can be an anarchist philosophy.

i will post some lectures that can clarify our discussion much more competently than i ever could.

because it seems we are getting snagged on definitions.
i use the classic definitions and you retort with the "americanized" and no matter how many words we type to each other...if we are not on the same page in regards to the most basic of agreements, "definitions", then we will always be in the weird loop-d-loop of circular reasoning.

we will probably still disagree but at least we will understand each other better.

i dont pay taxes.
i refused ten years ago and have stuck with that path.
and its been sunshine and rainbows ever since....
ok..not really.my income is severely crippled due to me not paying taxes BUT goddamn does it make me feel good!

i do not pay taxes not to be a cheap ass but rather to protest a system that is so obviously rigged against me.(and you).

as for american libertarianism.
i will say they have the civil rights down.
i totally agree with their philosophy of personal liberty and right to do whatever you want as long as you aint stepping on another blokes shoes.

but when they start with the "free market" sermons i start to look at them as wide-eyed and innocent children.
do they not SEE whats going on?
free market?
what is this free market you speak of?
america is NOT a free market.
it is corporate socialism.
or welfare if you want to troll a bit.

go ahead and de-regulate corporate america.
see what happens.
better yet,just look at some african nations,or former soviet states.
guilded estates with private armies for the uber-wealthy and elite while the majority of the population live in either indentured servitude or total squalor.

i am noticing a disturbing trend here in america.its like they are preparing.
we have a government bought and paid for by corporate america,which does the corporations bidding.
the co-opting of the tea party and the crushing of occupy.
a massive surveillance operation.
militarized police forces across the country.
civil liberties made into mere "suggestions" and no longer inalienable.
executions of american citizens with no due process (bye bye habeas corpus).
a standing army that has been in place for over 60 years and a war on terror that will never end.

it is madness.

so i cannot blame my libertarian friends for calling for smaller government.
because the government has become TOO big and no longer is "for the people,by the people".
it serves its corporate masters.
which is why the "de-regulate" argument truly baffles me.

just as my liberal friends who wish to use the system to correct these imbalances.
what?
the system is utterly BROKEN.
we no longer have a functioning democracy!
why would you even suggest to use a system that threw us all overboard to lick the boots of their masters 30 yrs ago?
the mind..it boggles.

every political philosophy has its flaws.none are perfect.
libertarianism has some very good points while others are a bit...naive in my opinion.

for me the end result is this:
i do not trust power nor authority because i find them to be illegitimate until they prove themselves otherwise.
so i am suspicious when someone tries to force their authority on me based on arbitrary and subjective parameters.(like a cop,or judge or some rich dude).

i am a humanist by nature so my political philosophy flows from that birthplace.
i will never step on you to further my career nor take food out of your mouth.
corporate america has spread a propaganda campaign that is insidious.

capitalism is good.
greed is good.
dog eat dog world out there.
here,buy this,it will make you feel better.
wear that and you will be sexy.
you are lone wolf,against the world,drive this car you lone wolf and be a rebel.

its all bullshit.
human beings feel better when they are co-operating.
when they feel their life has purpose and that they are needed.
not by living in a perpetual 7 yr olds wet dream.

oh
my
god.
you fuckers got me ranting!
i hate you both......
/drops mic