Hypocritical Murrica!. . I think it' s ' to inderstand thatyou on' t have 100 Percent then fave Jot? Percent pris' atr' mm‘ rlk' re goimg to have to make some c
x
Click to expand

Hypocritical Murrica!

I think it' s ' to
inderstand thatyou
on' t have 100 Percent
then fave
Jot? Percent pris' atr' mm‘
rlk' re goimg to have to
make some choices as r:
societ "
Eu Db (1111:!
A T'' society that
would give up
little liberty to gain
h ttle sercurity N
deserve neither and
lose both.
Franklin
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1023
Views: 40664
Favorited: 85
Submitted: 06/02/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to mysticado Subscribe to funny submit to reddit

Comments(231):

[ 231 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #48 - fuckya ONLINE (06/02/2014) [-]
If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar #97 to #48 - ziji (06/02/2014) [-]
If you want total rape, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar #200 to #48 - masterions (06/03/2014) [-]
That's got to be the dumbest quote I've heard for a long time.
What does security have to do with being fed, given medical care etc?
I won't even mention that in prison you're not exactly totally secure from other inmates ...
User avatar #203 to #200 - sagedivinity ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
Thank you
#27 - subtard (06/02/2014) [-]
Which pixel on this line represents the perfect balance for the country?

Fun Fact: If you're wrong, you're either a communist or an anarchist.
#30 to #27 - pedobearson (06/02/2014) [-]
I don't know, but I do know which ones it's not.
User avatar #217 to #30 - dogwars (06/03/2014) [-]
Perfect! We can just point with you saying "nah" until you say "yeah".
User avatar #47 to #27 - RiflemanFunny (06/02/2014) [-]
Right smack in the middle
User avatar #172 to #27 - landartheconqueror (06/03/2014) [-]
what about a fascist?
User avatar #193 to #27 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
Since the line is bowed inward you get the most value at either of the ends. Therefore, freedom is the best choice.
#196 to #193 - subtard (06/03/2014) [-]
I was thinking of multiplying the axes' values to optimize. I think just for that reason
User avatar #210 to #196 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
but this would be additive, not multiplicative as each freedom and security have value on their own.
User avatar #53 to #27 - moriorinvictus (06/02/2014) [-]
I weigh more heavily on the security aspect. Someone wants to watch me to make sure I don't go out murdering/ get murdered by someone? Fine by me, I'm okay with that.
#69 to #53 - jdizzleoffthehizzl (06/02/2014) [-]
If they wanna see me crank my yank hey by all means pull up a seat as long as I'm not getting stabbed
User avatar #197 to #53 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
You're right, I have nothing to hide so why should I care if someone searches me right? Who cares if they can show up at any time of day and keep coming back until they find something they can charge you with?
User avatar #211 to #197 - moriorinvictus (06/03/2014) [-]
Like anyone gives a **** about you enough to waste that kind of resources on you.

Don't kid yourself, you're not that important. As long as you contribute to society, pay your gov'ment taxes, and behave yourself, the government aint going to give two ***** about you. You can take that tin foil hat off now.
User avatar #212 to #211 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
Tell that to the people of north korea. And china. And brazil.
User avatar #216 to #212 - moriorinvictus (06/03/2014) [-]
Do you honestly believe american society will allow itself to be turned in something like that? We're a bubbling crock pot of clashing ideologies and personal motivation, theres no ******* way america has the resources to pull off totalitarianism. America is too large, diverse, and industrialized.

We're more in danger of become whatever the **** mexico is right now.
User avatar #71 to #27 - toxicchameleon (06/02/2014) [-]
You're either a fascist* or an anarchist. Communism =/= Opposite of Anarchism
User avatar #1 - leonhardt (06/02/2014) [-]
Because Benjamin Franklin knew about the internet.
User avatar #169 to #1 - durkadurka ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
Because, you know, principles aren't timeless or anything.
#88 to #1 - dariussibiu (06/02/2014) [-]
That it something the people using this outdated quote don't seem to get, and I had the same discussion last time this was posted: when someone can cripple a country from his/hers bedroom, bitch don't bring Franklin into discussion you might as well quote an neanderthal about nuclear weapons...
#16 to #1 - daddycool (06/02/2014) [-]
I don't understand.  At what point does logging onto the internet negate your 4th amendment rights?   
   
Picture related.
I don't understand. At what point does logging onto the internet negate your 4th amendment rights?

Picture related.
#28 to #16 - John Cena (06/02/2014) [-]
Picture related.
Picture related.
#25 to #16 - John Cena (06/02/2014) [-]
''picture''
#3 to #1 - papaspipi (06/02/2014) [-]
Maybe he did? You weren't there to know for sure
User avatar #4 to #3 - leonhardt (06/02/2014) [-]
Well he did have Storm Powers.
#122 to #4 - supercookieduster ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#174 to #4 - skiskis ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #148 - baditch ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
>Two different people
>"Hypocritical"
User avatar #17 - gildemoono (06/02/2014) [-]
I don't get why everyone always turns to the founding fathers to defend their points. Sure the founded this country but they are far from infallible. After all, everything they did eventually led their country to the point it is now.
User avatar #36 to #17 - chiselbit (06/02/2014) [-]
What they did allowed other people to do things that changed the way the system worked. George Washington warned that if we went to a 2 party system it would lead to political stagnation and hard times for the country. They may not be infallible but they knew what they were doing.
User avatar #170 to #17 - durkadurka ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
Well because they're the ones who made the country in the first place. They ought to have the right ideas about how the system should work since they designed that system. It'd be like turning to Bill Gates in a discussion about microsoft.

#187 to #17 - John Cena (06/03/2014) [-]
Just take a look at that terrible gun law, they ****** up when they aloud the public to walk around with guns. Didn't they predict school shootings?, or cinema, shopping mall, street, household, office building or park shootings? so much blood on the founding dumb ***** hands.
User avatar #32 to #17 - lean (06/02/2014) [-]
Because the constitution are not about laws governing men, but about laws prohibiting interference from the government. They were understood to be natural laws, or divine right, or w/e. They are what you inherently possess as a human being, no matter race, creed, or personal beliefs. These rights are unalienable and unbreakable, and the founding fathers understood that. That's why they are often quoted, because they built this country and understood the core belief in freedom. They also warned against what is happening right now in this country, and predicted that it will inevitably collapse.
#163 to #17 - swagbot (06/03/2014) [-]
Because...
1. Turns out that the philosophical challenges of Human Politics haven't changed that much since their time (or for thousands of years, for that matter)
...and with that in mind...
2. The Founding Fathers made it THEIR JOB to think about said 'Philosophical Challenges', and they came out to some really solid and profound conclusions, that hold as just as much validity today.

That's why we always quote the founding fathers, as well as other historical figures... because the problems they dealt with are the same problems we're dealing with today

...and we're still dealing with those problems because we haven't been follow their advice.
User avatar #52 to #17 - Daeiros (06/02/2014) [-]
As chiselbit said, the founding fathers actually warned against tons of things and said they were horrible ideas that would ruin the country. Idiots who came after them ignored those warnings, and did those things, and it went exactly the way the founding fathers said it would.
The two party system is a good example, the federal reserve is another good example, and there are plenty more.
The reason they are quoted so often is because people need to be reminded that they basically told us not to do all the dumb **** we are doing.

"But hurr durr, that was a long time ago, everything is different now!"
No, everything is faster now, not different, just faster. That means the things they said are even more important because everything can go to **** at breakneck speeds.
#72 to #52 - John Cena (06/02/2014) [-]
I want to give you more thumbs, but one anon can only do so much.
#79 - akarathesixth (06/02/2014) [-]
I don't know that Obama is saying a lot of freedoms should be sacrificed for that privacy, he is simply saying that 100% security and 100% privacy can't exist at the same time. I would rather have privacy then security, but that's just me. I feel like there's a balance somewhere between the two extremes that we should concentrate on finding.
#19 - Hightower (06/02/2014) [-]
Two different people, separated by 200+ of history, having differing opinions on something makes which one of them a hypocrite?
I don't think you understand how the world works son.
#24 - robuntu (06/02/2014) [-]
People really like to think they live in a time that is unique from any other. But really, things aren't that different. People made the same arguments for and against privacy since, well, forever.

It's fine to say, 'Well, I disagree with Benjamin Franklin'. That's cool. He's famous and all, and he was a smart guy, but that doesn't mean he's right. But it's really a cop-out to pretend he would hold a different opinion today. Or that the issues we face are different than what they faced.

Every generation, since forever, has had to deal with new technology. Every generation, since forever, seems to think it's a totally new and unique problem. But it isn't.
User avatar #126 to #24 - leonhardt (06/03/2014) [-]
Ben Franklin would **** out his brain if you went back in time and tried to explain to him how the internet works.
#165 - dickticklerluv (06/03/2014) [-]
although ol' Ben's ideas sure sound pleasant I'm sure not every government kept the same ideals from over 200 ******* years ago
#175 to #165 - durkadurka ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
Well sure they didn't. But other governments haven't produced the same results. Being old does not discredit an idea's validity.
User avatar #180 to #175 - dickticklerluv (06/03/2014) [-]
Governments go through changes all the time

IE: Germany
User avatar #186 to #180 - durkadurka ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
I'm afraid I don't get the point. Germany took a massive turn for the worse. That can happen. But our system has produced great results. Doesn't it make sense to go with what works?
User avatar #184 to #165 - xxbandwagonxx (06/03/2014) [-]
Also he wasn't the president, so there's that.
#162 - murderouswaffle (06/03/2014) [-]
It's not hypocritical, they're two different men with two different ideas. Maybe if people would stop associating an entire country with the characteristics of a few of it's people, the world would be a better place.
#157 - yologdog (06/03/2014) [-]
The problem between freedom vs securety is that neither solution is wrong.   
   
It will always be a matter of both opinion and of the times.   
   
Personally I'm for freedom, and I must warn that as we go into a different era we must be careful about just how much power we give our government in the name of security.
The problem between freedom vs securety is that neither solution is wrong.

It will always be a matter of both opinion and of the times.

Personally I'm for freedom, and I must warn that as we go into a different era we must be careful about just how much power we give our government in the name of security.
#134 - torntrousers (06/03/2014) [-]
The actualy quote is: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
#145 to #134 - ascendedtribe (06/03/2014) [-]
Thank you; those two adjectives radically change the meaning of the quote and are highly important. Really hate when people leave them out.
User avatar #116 - bakonforall ONLINE (06/03/2014) [-]
In defense of the president, sacrificing privacy is not necessarily the same as sacrificing liberty.

Examples here ( First, the existence of the NSA is a fantastic example of liberty not being lost with an invasion of privacy. People were no less free to use email, to go about their business, to do anything, really. So long as your emails do not contain any keywords that will get them flagged as terrorist chatter, they will probably not even be read. It's not like the police are going to come to your house and say "you're under arrest because you said in an email to your wife that you were smoking pot." No, the NSA invades our privacy, but in the end, is innocuous for everyone except terrorists and people who give the government cause for concern. Next, there has been a lot of chatter among liberals calling for a national firearms registry. This program would restrict the privacy of owning a firearm without the government's knowledge, but unless it came with stricter gun ownership regulation, would not impede people's right to keep and bare arms. I'm sure you could counter this argument by listing situations such as the TSA which both invade privacy and restrict what a person is allowed to do, but my point is that the two concepts of personal freedom and personal privacy are not necessarily synonymous. ) if you feel like debating.
User avatar #141 to #116 - shodaihokage (06/03/2014) [-]
I think a lot of people are concerned with what could happen if the NSA keeps spying on us. Sure it starts out as only searching email for terrorist messages, however, over time officials in the NSA could search for those speaking out against the gov't etc. Of course this would happen if this organization was corrupt but, anything is possible.
0
#156 to #141 - bakonforall has deleted their comment [-]
#154 - pyrusd (06/03/2014) [-]
I know for a fact I will never be 100% safe on the highways since other people are involved. That doesn't mean you take away everyone's cars.

I know for a fact I will never be 100% safe anywhere since other people are involved. That doesn't mean you take away everyone's guns.

I know for a fact my children will never be 100% safe from swears, tits, violence in shows. That doesn't mean you take away everyone's programming.

I know for a fact that my food will never be 100% safe to eat (even organic). That doesn't mean you take away everyone's food.

I know for a fact I am not 100% safe...I'm fine with that. These are my choices to make, not yours.
User avatar #179 to #154 - pokemonstheshiz (06/03/2014) [-]
i think you completely missed the points of both quotes
User avatar #185 to #154 - Kulthozuer (06/03/2014) [-]
That has to be the worst argument ever.

There is an area in between 100% safe will full regulation on everything and 0% safe because you just let people do whatever you want.

I don't even understand what point you are trying to make there is plenty of times food, cars and guns should be taken away. You should take someones gun when they have shown time and time again they intend to use it to murder people, you should take away food that people are selling when they know it's dangerous.

The fact of the matter is not everyone is qualified to make their own decisions. Do you want sociopaths to just be able to do whatever they want? Have fun living in a society where everyone can make their own decisions all the time I like having regulations on explosives and who is allowed to pilot an airplane or market themselves as a doctor.
#218 to #185 - pyrusd (06/03/2014) [-]
That's actually the argument I was making lol.

In my opinion, in recent US politics, a couple of people have done things to hurt others so they want to take those items away from EVERYONE.

Someone gets shot. NO GUNS FOR ANYONE.
Someone gets hit by a car. NO MORE CARS. granted not that extreme but lower speed limits, higher enforcement, seat belt laws....which totally affect others and how you drive....(sarcastically)
Someone gets a tummy ache from raw milk. NO RAW MILK FOR ANYONE AAAHHHHH.

This is what I'm getting at. Where recently it seems like the US government is trying to bubble wrap and ziplock everyone into safety whereas I know we will never be 100% safe and I'm fine with that. I accept that eating uncooked meat COULD hurt me, it's my own fault, that doesn't mean you seek to ban it for everyone.

I'm for people having guns, not the wack jobs BUT at the same time it's damn near impossible to ensure even that will be 100% fool proof and a wacko will never get one. It seems that every time something minor goes wrong the Fed tries to completely eliminate it off of the planet.
User avatar #219 to #218 - Kulthozuer (06/04/2014) [-]
I apologize as I was rather insulting.

The point I was trying to make was that there are things that should be taken away as the bad that can come from them outweighs the good. For example very dangerous weapons such as fully automatic weapons that are powerful and have large ammunition capacities. There is little to no reason to actually own one, they are not good for hunting and have very little use in sport shooting. There are those that would argue there is no difference than someone using that or using any gun that remains legal however I think it is clear that the loss of life of horrible events can be limited by losing small liberties that barely affect anyone such as our right to owning things such as bombs, certain weapons and regulations regarding what we can eat or serve as well.
#230 to #219 - pyrusd (06/06/2014) [-]
Apologize online? You must be Canadian, lol.

But I agree with you to an extent. Legally the US outlawed Full Auto's because they ran into conviction trouble. On Semi-Automatic weapons, every time the person pulls the trigger you can tack on a charge, like malicious intent. With a Full-auto, anyone can "freeze" or "scare" and then hold down the trigger till the weapon is empty, not meaning to do it and carrying a smaller charge on the trigger pull.

Now, just because we don't "have a reason" to own one, doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to. That word "NEED" has been coming up a lot and it's complete ******** . You don't NEED an assault rifle. It's not about need and never has been. Because Congressmen, you don't NEED YOUR JOB. It is NEVER the Government's job to tell us what we NEED. If that was the case then we might as well be commies where the Fed can say, one car per household, you pollute too much. One bathroom. One Shower. One loaf of bread per week, that is all you NEED. So I am 100% against that word especially coming from the Government.

Back to the original argument though. Laws are developed (the philosophy, not necessarily the practice) to limit harm to others. Any law should have that as it's main goal and not the complete prevention of harm, because that's impossible. But these guys all believe they can achieve it now which is retarded. Someone was shot. NO GUNS FOR ANYONE. Uh, it doesn't work that way, just ask Anders Breivik in Norway.

I believe we have done a ton to limit gun violence BUT it's not just because people can buy guns that is leading to trouble. These legislators aren't looking at any other facets like WHY these guys want to go around killing others to begin with. These just run on the assumption if we get rid of guns, we get rid of gun violence. Not how it works. Not to mention that a kid in PA goes on a stabbing spree....
User avatar #34 - mrnaanbread (06/02/2014) [-]
I actually kind of side with Obamarack here.
#160 - John Cena (06/03/2014) [-]
There are now nukes in our world. Ben Franklin had no idea we would have such power. Read my ******* e-mails, texts, and whatnot, because we already ruined the world, so we now have to survive it
#119 - John Cena (06/03/2014) [-]
***** dont even know what liberty is
#138 - freedombirdman (06/03/2014) [-]
His words were wise.
The problem with trying to 'prevent crimes before they happen' is that this idea very much violates the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Now I am not saying that law enforcement should not try to intercept crimes in progress (such as conducting a sting operation on a drug deal or a murder about to take place). What I am saying is that internet history and personal conversations cannot be grounds for prosecution, at least not outright. Say for example that someone is researching bombs(perhaps for a paper or out of curiosity, but they have no illegal intentions). The government might decide to try and prosecute this individual, or even perform a preemptive strike if they feel this is the correct action (obviously this would be an extreme case, but the logic applies). The point is that you are essentially allowing government, which is made up of humans and therefore flawed, to pass judgement on the intentions of a person before any crime is committed. Then this leads into the issue of how probable cause is decided (can simply speaking badly about the government on a forum be grounds for suspicion, etc...)

A helicopter government will not make us more secure, it will simply make us more dependent and less able to take responsibility for our own safety and security. The inefficiency demonstrated by the TSA and other agencies has shown this.
User avatar #92 - infotechexplain (06/02/2014) [-]
Both are correct chronologically and intuitively.
Ben Franklin was a founding father in a then-newborn country. He would want as much freedom for the people, and to stay as possible away as possible from Britain. He was a diplomat though, so I mean by ideals, not politically. Any general security that would be made would be used to protect the country, not enslave it. Without security like an army, the Union would've failed to keep their hold against Great Britain.
In the face of 9/11 and possible future terrorist attacks, Barack Obama is considering that despite the numerous freedoms secured, and by virtue honored, the only way to prevent future attacks is to attempt to intercept them. This would ultimately infringe on privacy of many innocent civilians. Given the nature of the Internet, whatever privacy we may have online is not always guaranteed, yet is taken lightly.
So here is the question, would you give up some freedoms to ensure the safety of the whole nation? inb4 zeroth law
User avatar #46 - traveltech ONLINE (06/02/2014) [-]
**** people who revere the founding fathers as the absolute source of knowledge on how the country should be run for all time. If even they believed that were the case they wouldn't have made a way to change the constitution.
[ 231 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)