Hipler. Snowden ftw Also more news about the nsa nazis: www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/07/is-the-nsa-rejecting-all-freedom-of-information-act-requests-from-u- NSA lindsey graham graham crackers Hitler goebbels
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (120)
[ 120 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#10 - rollinquads
Reply +45 123456789123345869
(07/08/2013) [-]
Under nazi rule everything was fine when you were initially getting spied on. Then they make you wear a star... then they decided to ration food... then reduce that ration... then take your guns away... and then, when you are too malnourished and too defenseless are too noticeable to stop them they simply herd you like cattle. No citizen at the start of the regime knew what would eventually come, but history is an example that it can happen. Of course you should have trust in your government, but don't be so blind to the idea that people have killed millions because they rose to power with everyone thinking they had just causes and flipping them after it was too late, and especially don't believe that it can't happen to you.
#59 to #10 - captainreposty
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I love how you define your freedom being curtailed as your gun being taken away.
(I agree with the rest of it, but I'm pretty sure you're more free if everyone has all guns taken away, IMO).
#122 to #59 - rollinquads
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
i dont think i defined freedom at all... it was just an easy example to make being that i don't know every nuance of the rules in nazi ruled territories. As for no one having guns... i've talked to people from the south who say the 2nd amendment to them means that its protection from government tyranny. and that they should have the ability to defend themselves if the government ever fails them. So if no one had guns and then the government "suddenly" did, they could essentially create a military state and no one could really contest. I don't mean to **** on your opinion i just don't think it would work if no one had guns.
#87 to #10 - tomad
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
i personally think we shouldn't trust our governments, we should be highly critical of them and make them remember that they work for us, not the other way around.
#121 to #87 - rollinquads
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
i mean i think we should trust them as much as they trust us.. ideally they would have everything organized at a federal level and we could trust them to manage the country at that level. but as we've seen they don't exactly trust us that much
User avatar #92 to #10 - thelastamerican
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Some Jews did revolt. The villages where they were living were burned to the ground or reduce to rubble. Read about the Warsaw Ghetto. The Germans used artillery on them in the end.
User avatar #93 to #92 - thelastamerican
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Let me revise that statement. The Nazis used artillery on them.
User avatar #36 to #10 - theblacksheep
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Last I checked, don't bite my head off if I'm wrong here, the Nazis only took the Jews' guns. The gun laws from 1919 were allied laws from the treaty of versailles then Hitler put in his own gun laws that deregulated gun laws quite a bit, except for jews of course. Just read an article on it today, and everything on the internet is true... so... yeah idk anyone knowledgeable beyond facebook picture's meant to scare people care to confirm?
#39 to #36 - rollinquads
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
it would kind of be undermined by the whole "taking guns and rounding them up in camps" part i feel haha
#37 to #36 - rollinquads
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
i mean i learned in history class several years ago that they would ration away meat and other proteins so that they would grow weak. Granted im not sure if rationing would be a documented piece of legislation outside the nazi regime. know what i mean?
User avatar #40 to #37 - theblacksheep
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Well I'm sure they also lowered the jewish rations. But I was just talking about the gun part, I'd assume they did indeed lower them.
User avatar #116 to #40 - formidableguy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
they began rationing in Poland quite early to ensure the troops and German people had enough food, they (German nationals and soldiers) would be given enough food a day to reach 2,500 calories while Jews were rationed to the point where some places they were getting less than 600 calories a day. E.G The Warsaw Ghetto
User avatar #11 to #10 - maousama
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Under Nazi rule everything was fine, until the fire nation attacked
I'm sorry it's just what i was expecting
#15 to #11 - formidableguy
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
High Five for you.
#16 to #15 - maousama
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Sorry i don't high five with the likes of you, Amon
Sorry i don't high five with the likes of you, Amon
User avatar #115 to #16 - formidableguy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
awww, sad Amon
#18 - spiritlift
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
If this statement is true, then why is the government hiding things from us?
#88 to #18 - anon id: 77b75c9f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
That's the joke.Jpeg
User avatar #72 to #18 - infiniteduress
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Because if you haven't noticed, Americans are afraid of everything.

and if they fear it they hide it (kinder eggs) or kill it (Middle East)

because we hide things we stop learning about them and they become an unknown and even more scary

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
User avatar #3 - traelos
Reply -21 123456789123345869
(07/08/2013) [-]
Oh no, a Nazi said something! It can't possibly be valid.

I guess all dogs should be shot, since Hitler liked dogs, and inevitably at some point or another he said "I like dogs".

I guess mustaches should be illegal too since Hitler and Stalin had those.
User avatar #7 to #3 - mustaches
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/08/2013) [-]
Why should I be illegal for the evil acts of the people that wore me?!
User avatar #9 to #7 - traelos
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(07/08/2013) [-]
Because one of them was a nazi!

Didn't you read the content, everything a nazi has ever said or done is inherently evil and wrong.
#13 to #9 - anon id: 8ad39c9c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Stop being a silly billy with your fancy reasoning
#27 to #3 - herpderpherpity
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
more likely it would have been "Ich mag/liebe hunde"
User avatar #120 to #27 - traelos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Well I doubt Goebbels said it in English either, I was paraphrasing.
#100 to #3 - primerpower
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
#5 to #3 - niggastolemyname
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/08/2013) [-]
related
User avatar #26 to #3 - turbodoosh
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Found the NSA agent
#54 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
-4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#57 to #54 - captainreposty
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
You're a ******* idiot.
Those are two exact quotes, both taken in context.
I can tell you would resit a revolution, I can also tell that you do not see the freedoms that are being restricted.
I bet you watch CNN/Fox News.
#109 to #57 - anon id: f525857a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
yeah, the only real news in america is msnbc, the rest are propaganda arms of the republican party.
User avatar #97 to #57 - rhiaanor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
What is this CNN? Isn't it that thing that doesn't exist, meaning it is fabricated, a lie, just like everything it is rumored to tell of?
#66 to #57 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #90 to #66 - salihzzz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
welcome to the internet faggot ****
#70 to #57 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
-2 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #75 - ImsoObvious
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
the holocaust never happened.

think about it, have you ever saw a hitler in real life before?
User avatar #76 to #75 - satrenkotheone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Yes
User avatar #77 to #76 - ImsoObvious
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
IN PERSON????
User avatar #78 to #77 - satrenkotheone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Yes.
User avatar #79 to #78 - ImsoObvious
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Are you telling the truth?
User avatar #80 to #79 - satrenkotheone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
All the time.
User avatar #81 to #78 - ImsoObvious
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I mean, do you like big fat black cocks in your mouth?
User avatar #82 to #81 - satrenkotheone
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
The reply system doesn't work that way here on Fj.
User avatar #83 to #82 - ImsoObvious
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
i tried
#84 to #83 - satrenkotheone
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
User avatar #85 to #81 - satrenkotheone
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I'd prefer my partner to be white btw.
User avatar #86 to #75 - thechosentroll
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
The prime-minister of my country, at the time, had lunch with Hitler a couple of times. I'm fairly certain he was real.
User avatar #12 - jokeface
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I still support that philosophy...
User avatar #50 to #12 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I still support you being kicked in the balls.
User avatar #52 to #50 - jokeface
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
K.
User avatar #91 to #12 - thelastamerican
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
May I ask why?
User avatar #123 to #91 - jokeface
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Because I don't see the harm in it.
User avatar #126 to #123 - thelastamerican
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Well, I see some harm in it if it's being run by humans. Humans are fallible creatures by nature, we just are. Allowing a group of people unrestricted access to everyone's records is like handing them everyone's dirty secrets on a platter and then telling them, "Now don't use this for personal gain." Witch they may not do. But the likely hood of someone with a similar security clearance to Snowden, who is in his 20's and works for a private contractor coming across something that's just too good to let go increase drastically the longer the program runs.
#33 to #12 - sytheris
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I see the point. If you want to hide things, surely the only reason is you're committing crimes, yes?

While i agree that the rule is abused by some, I for one don't want the government knowing what porn I watch, especially if a corrupt official gets a hold of it, and decides to black male me with it.

I also want the government to be completely transparent, but that's sure as **** not going to happen because then our government gets manipulated even more easily by OTHER governments.

The real world isn't so black and white that a single concept just works.
#114 to #33 - jrondeau **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I really, really don't like getting involved in these ******** arguments, but your ignorant comment has made me rage sir.   
   
Do you really, REALLY think that any government official, no matter how corrupt, would attempt to blackmail you with the porn you watch, or with anything for that matter? How exactly do you think that would pan out for them? Because unless you're some clueless idiot who has no concept of how the media works, you should immediately jump to the conclusion that you would have the upper hand in that situation.   
   
Here's how that scenario should go:   
Official: "Hey sytheris, I saw that you browsed gay furry porn again for about 6 hours yesterday. Wire me some money and I'll make sure no one finds out."   
Sytheris: "Welp, glad you told me that. I'll surely go get you that money."   
Then you would promptly find your local media outlet, show them what happened, and proceed to make millions from sharing your story around the country whilst the official was arrested.
I really, really don't like getting involved in these ******** arguments, but your ignorant comment has made me rage sir.

Do you really, REALLY think that any government official, no matter how corrupt, would attempt to blackmail you with the porn you watch, or with anything for that matter? How exactly do you think that would pan out for them? Because unless you're some clueless idiot who has no concept of how the media works, you should immediately jump to the conclusion that you would have the upper hand in that situation.

Here's how that scenario should go:
Official: "Hey sytheris, I saw that you browsed gay furry porn again for about 6 hours yesterday. Wire me some money and I'll make sure no one finds out."
Sytheris: "Welp, glad you told me that. I'll surely go get you that money."
Then you would promptly find your local media outlet, show them what happened, and proceed to make millions from sharing your story around the country whilst the official was arrested.
#117 to #114 - sytheris
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
it is called an example sir, one that is relate able to the common user. Perhaps through these investigations someone's heritage is revealed, and they are subject to prejudice, or perhaps even hate crimes depending.

You also presume everyone has the personal capacity to be okay with the public openly finding out they like gay furry porn, especially if you, say, worked in politics or another media-heavy business. Such a thing would make a lot of closed minded people not only dislike you, but in some cases rage about you.

when we live in a world that accuses a woman of being a lesbian because she played baseball on camera, which did, in fact, hurt her political career deeply, I think more private information might just be a little more sensitive.

Nice .gif by the way.
User avatar #119 to #117 - jrondeau **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
And a journalist can win the Pulitzer by getting themselves thrown in prison in a foreign country for a couple days for pursuing a story because the public loves hearing about **** like that. A reporter can come back a national hero just for standing up for their cause (which is to win a Pulitzer in such a case, not report the story). The same concept applies for someone who has the stones to stand up to a corrupt official in this hypothetical and ridiculous situation.

Being blackmailed by a politician has far more pros than cons if you have any semblance of critical reasoning skills. There's too much for such an official to lose and so much for you to gain in the way of media attention.
#127 to #119 - sytheris
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Again, why should these people be forced into that situation? If all they want it so watch their gay furry porn in peace? Your ideal is beautiful in theory, but assuming every single situation would work out gloriously for the 'victim' is naive and says a lot about your perspective of the real world.
User avatar #128 to #127 - jrondeau **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2013) [-]
Why should they be forced into a situation wherein they'd make millions for their choice in porn? Damn, sounds awful.

And please enlighten me on how or even why a politician could blackmail any ordinary citizen in America today.
#129 to #128 - sytheris
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2013) [-]
you still presume everything will work out in the hurt one's favor, in a picture perfect story of big bad criminal getting shown what for. that's not how the world works.

If a man had, say a vendetta against another man, and the former man had access to the database of this information, he could do a large variety of things, depending on what he found. all totally legal, but still potentially damning, from having a Mistress to secretly being homosexual. You are generalizing the risk, and lauding the potential reward, and it is skewing your viewpoint.
#118 to #117 - sytheris
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
also grammar cockup in the first paragraph because I've been awake for twnety something hours.
#21 to #12 - foelkera
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I support my foot up your ass, you filthy commie!
#58 to #21 - captainreposty
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
It's got literally nothing to do with Communism.    
   
You filthy capitalist!
It's got literally nothing to do with Communism.

You filthy capitalist!
User avatar #22 to #21 - jokeface
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Sorry, I just don't see what's wrong with it.
User avatar #23 to #22 - foelkera
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Not a lot of people enjoy being watched 24/7. Plus, the government supports this philosophy, but they aren't open to the public and telling citizens what they're doing. If a group is monitored, at least monitor all of the groups equally instead of watching over the populace while telling them nothing.
User avatar #25 to #23 - jokeface
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Why? What's wrong with someone watching if you have no secrets? Your life is unaffected, and theirs just becomes more boring because now they're staring at a monitor while nothing interesting is going on. And of course the government can't tell us everything or their would be constant rioting and chaos (more than there is now, anyway).
#30 to #25 - yeorey
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Well, the US Constitution specifies that the police and government cannot conduct searches and seizures without a warrant. 4th amendment to be exact, also the 5th amendment says that the people do not have self-incriminate. All of these NSA scandals that you may hear on the news is tied to amendment violations. Bills like the Patriot Act and the NDAA nullify the constitution and make illegal activities legal.

tl;dr: Surveillance is illegal in the US if its done without warrant.
#38 to #30 - anon id: 219e05f7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Nothing that the government is doing violates the 4th or 5th amendment. Read up on the details of what they are actually doing instead of just finding soundbites posted around the internet.
#101 to #38 - teranin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
They gather information that is private, regardless of whether they look at it or not. That information is your personal property.
4th Amendment Reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They are seizing your private information, regardless of whether they are using it. It is in clear violation.
User avatar #43 to #38 - smithforprez
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
0/10
#48 to #43 - anon id: 219e05f7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that metadata is okay and legal, and that is all they are doing- they aren't searching the content of any of your data. You are making yourself look really foolish.
User avatar #49 to #48 - smithforprez
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
the supreme court can **** itself, the power to amend the constitution belongs to the legislature and constitutional convention and not a handful of dress wearing morons who think they decide what the law is

Twist your dick around and shove it up your own ass
#53 to #49 - anon id: 219e05f7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Clearly you know ******** about anything political. They aren't amending the constitution, but rather showing how to apply it- it's how the court system works. Did that get through your thick skull? If you don't like the American system, then leave.
User avatar #125 to #53 - smithforprez
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
no u
User avatar #107 to #30 - dwarfman
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I like your reply but hate seeing that sodding cult leader again.
#61 to #25 - anon id: 99b88c55
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Think of it like this: You may have nothing to hide now, but the list of rights and freedoms is slowly getting shorter and shorter. Hell, with the internet being threatened countless of times I wonder why people still trust the American government.
User avatar #64 to #61 - jokeface
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Well the supposed threats upon the internet are jokes. The internet is more powerful than any government will ever be, so there's no need to worry about that. And when I feel like my rights are being threatened then I'll respond accordingly, but right now I feel just as free as I ever have.
#28 to #25 - senorfrog
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I is in the middle, I don't like the government or anyone always watching me(they could be masturbating to me masturbating) but, most of the people that don't like the police or say "**** the popo" are usually the people doing things wrong.
User avatar #29 to #28 - jokeface
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I'm not fond of the idea of someone watching me fap either, but even if they are (which I highly doubt), it's not like they'd be able to use that against you for anything.
User avatar #31 to #29 - senorfrog
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Youd be surprised, paula D got introuble for calling her workers "monkeies" but was kicked off food channel for saying ****** 20 years ago.
User avatar #34 to #31 - jokeface
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
What's that got to do with the government though?
#42 to #34 - anon id: 2c2ffc7c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
HOLY COW! a thoughtful, intelligent, discussion taking place in the comments, never thought I'd see that happen. But I have to say I think it's wrong to say you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide. There is always SOMETHING you'd like to hide, not in a criminal way, but just maybe you don't feel comfortable sharing it. Example: I highly doubt you want your name, address, etc posted right now for people to further troll, bother or annoy you. And further more this is likely because to some degree you have something to fear from some users. So what if you hide something because you are afraid? We do not live in a perfect world, there will always be someone who doesn't have your best interests at heart and they shouldn't be privy to your entire life. And often you can spot these people by them arguing that they should be. But that's just my opinion, have a good night.
User avatar #45 to #42 - jokeface
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I'm conflicted on how to reply to this comment, because one the one hand, your first sentence was flattering and nice, but the rest of what you said completely missed the point.

There's a difference between the government observing you, and the general public getting your information. I'm not against government surveillance but I also take solace in the knowledge that they won't be giving my personal information to other people. If they wanted to do that they already could have, because they already have our personal information just by us being "on the grid". Since they already have that, what else can they possibly get?
#51 to #45 - anon id: 2c2ffc7c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
(me again) What else could they take that would be a danger to you? (I hope that's what you're asking because that's what I'm responding to) I'll pussy out first by saying I can't answer that directly because I am not you. But as a more general answer, ever heard of Senator McCarthy and the committee of Unamerican Activities? As to saying there's a difference between the government observing you and the general public getting your information, here's something to think about. 1 the government is not infallible and the information can leak 2 if you live in a democracy, ideally the government represents the general public; so I think what I said initially about some people not having your best interests at heart can apply to government as well. I don't mean to be paranoid and say that the government is out to get you, but it is formed from people, who can be fallible and have their best interests in mind.
User avatar #35 to #34 - senorfrog
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
They kept it in record since she was robbed at her store when she said it.
User avatar #41 to #35 - jokeface
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
But it wasn't the government that fired her. It was the network executives.
#94 - herecomesjohnny
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I really want to see that guy caught in bed with an underage hooker.
I really want to see that guy caught in bed with an underage hooker.
#95 to #94 - senseofpurpose
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
I've met him, we traded soap once
#96 to #94 - anon id: 47ece886
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
why, not like anything would happen to him
#73 - ekseevi **User deleted account**
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Goebbles? Gobbles!
#46 - iareman
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Just sayin...
#55 to #46 - anon id: c7b4a61a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
Only goes for internet discussions where one is trying to hide its fascist statements behind a stupid 'law' which isn't even a law but a mere meme only used when one is trying to hide its fascist statements.
#71 to #55 - iareman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
The tradition that developed from the 'law' was that of someone drawing a direct comparison between someone, something, or a certain policy, and the Nazi party. Once this comparison has been made the one who has made it is to be declared the looser of the ongoing argument, as it may be assumed that they have run out of factual evidence to back up an assertion and have fallen on the archetypal "The Nazi's did/endorsed X, so X is bad", or vice versa. Using such a comparison to HIDE a fascist statement would be a very weak strategy, seeing as the Nazi party were fascists.

I may have missed your point entirely. I'm not quite sure. But according to the traditions of the internet, OP has lost.
#19 - ddylann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
but is this actually irony?
User avatar #32 to #19 - fuzzyballs
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/09/2013) [-]
NEIN