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
Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

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: 40596
Favorited: 86
Submitted: 06/02/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to mysticado Subscribe to funny E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(231):

[ 231 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - leonhardt (06/02/2014) [+] (10 replies)
Because Benjamin Franklin knew about the internet.
#3 to #1 - papaspipi (06/02/2014) [-]
Maybe he did? You weren't there to know for sure
User avatar #17 - gildemoono (06/02/2014) [+] (7 replies)
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 #48 - fuckya (06/02/2014) [+] (3 replies)
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
#64 - galaxyguy (06/02/2014) [+] (23 replies)
Honest opinion time:

That quote by Benjamin Franklin is - in my humble opinion - one of the stupidest things I have ever read from such a great man.
I mean, the entire point of society is to give up liberty to create security.
#75 to #64 - skittlesinexcess (06/02/2014) [-]
That is legitimately exactly what Hitler believed.
It's a balance between freedom and order
#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.
#27 - subtard (06/02/2014) [+] (14 replies)
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.
User avatar #148 - baditch (06/03/2014) [-]
>Two different people
>"Hypocritical"
#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.
#24 - robuntu (06/02/2014) [+] (1 reply)
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.
#134 - torntrousers (06/03/2014) [+] (1 reply)
The actualy quote is: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
User avatar #46 - traveltech (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.
User avatar #116 - bakonforall (06/03/2014) [+] (2 replies)
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.
#154 - pyrusd (06/03/2014) [+] (5 replies)
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 #34 - mrnaanbread (06/02/2014) [-]
I actually kind of side with Obamarack here.
#165 - dickticklerluv (06/03/2014) [+] (4 replies)
although ol' Ben's ideas sure sound pleasant I'm sure not every government kept the same ideals from over 200 ******* years ago
#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.
#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 #44 - herecomesjohnny ONLINE (06/02/2014) [-]
of course you give up liberty for security, that's what society is built around. You give up the right to rape and murder to be protected...from rape and murder, for example.

Law in itself is a compromise to complete liberty.
[ 231 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)