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
x
Click to expand

Hipler

icy' MI
LINDSEY GRAHAM
UNITE D STATES. SENATE! R
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+596
Views: 24528
Favorited: 53
Submitted: 07/08/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to chiefrunnyjeans submit to reddit

Comments(120):

[ 120 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#10 - rollinquads (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
Let me revise that statement. The Nazis used artillery on them.
User avatar #36 to #10 - theblacksheep (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (07/09/2013) [-]
High Five for you.
#16 to #15 - maousama (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 (07/09/2013) [-]
awww, sad Amon
#18 - spiritlift (07/09/2013) [-]
If this statement is true, then why is the government hiding things from us?
#88 to #18 - anon (07/09/2013) [-]
That's the joke.Jpeg
User avatar #72 to #18 - infiniteduress (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.
#94 - herecomesjohnny (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.
#96 to #94 - anon (07/09/2013) [-]
why, not like anything would happen to him
#95 to #94 - senseofpurpose (07/09/2013) [-]
I've met him, we traded soap once
#73 - ekseevi **User deleted account** (07/09/2013) [-]
Goebbles? Gobbles!
#2 - kirkbot ONLINE (07/08/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#46 - iareman (07/09/2013) [-]
Just sayin...
#55 to #46 - anon (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 (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.
#69 - jakatackka (07/09/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, I just can't take seriously any man named "Lindsey".
User avatar #44 - icameforthepron (07/09/2013) [-]
Like Lindsey Graham is the only person in American politics to ever say this.
#1 - golemcreator (07/08/2013) [-]
think this is fitting here
-4
#54 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#57 to #54 - captainreposty (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.
-1
#66 to #57 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #90 to #66 - salihzzz (07/09/2013) [-]
welcome to the internet faggot ****
#109 to #57 - anon (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 (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?
-2
#70 to #57 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #3 - traelos (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 (07/08/2013) [-]
Why should I be illegal for the evil acts of the people that wore me?!
User avatar #9 to #7 - traelos (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 (07/09/2013) [-]
Stop being a silly billy with your fancy reasoning
#27 to #3 - herpderpherpity (07/09/2013) [-]
more likely it would have been "Ich mag/liebe hunde"
User avatar #120 to #27 - traelos (07/09/2013) [-]
Well I doubt Goebbels said it in English either, I was paraphrasing.
User avatar #26 to #3 - turbodoosh (07/09/2013) [-]
Found the NSA agent
User avatar #6 - threadz (07/08/2013) [-]
That doesn't make it not true. This kind of crazy connection is the kind of thing I'd expect from Fox News, not the Internet
User avatar #20 - mummyslittlebitch ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
I don't find that ironic. I find that very typical coming from the Republican party
#89 to #20 - aceonfire (07/09/2013) [-]
Obama did renew the Patriot Act, which is the reason for all the fuss. Id have to say its more of a politicians in general kinda thing, rather than this party or that.
Obama did renew the Patriot Act, which is the reason for all the fuss. Id have to say its more of a politicians in general kinda thing, rather than this party or that.
#24 to #20 - anon (07/09/2013) [-]
except the people the current DJ 4DM1Nistration is democrat and they are spying.
User avatar #60 to #24 - ivoryhammer (07/09/2013) [-]
Bush did the same thing as a Republican
#110 to #60 - anon (07/09/2013) [-]
exactly, yet these racist republicans want to put the blame on obama. look i trust obama more, he's not bush or cheney, he's not going to abuse these powers.
User avatar #106 to #60 - keiishiyama (07/09/2013) [-]
Bush didn't leave us a country to be ridiculed. Obama's not even a year through his second term, and South America - and the rest of the world - is laughing at him.
#124 to #106 - ivoryhammer (07/09/2013) [-]
Please tell me you're joking
User avatar #12 - jokeface (07/09/2013) [-]
I still support that philosophy...
User avatar #91 to #12 - thelastamerican ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
May I ask why?
User avatar #123 to #91 - jokeface (07/09/2013) [-]
Because I don't see the harm in it.
User avatar #126 to #123 - thelastamerican ONLINE (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.
User avatar #50 to #12 - feelythefeel (07/09/2013) [-]
I still support you being kicked in the balls.
User avatar #52 to #50 - jokeface (07/09/2013) [-]
K.
#33 to #12 - sytheris (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** (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 (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** (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 (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** (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 (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 (07/09/2013) [-]
also grammar cockup in the first paragraph because I've been awake for twnety something hours.
#21 to #12 - foelkera ONLINE (07/09/2013) [-]
I support my foot up your ass, you filthy commie!
#58 to #21 - captainreposty (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 (07/09/2013) [-]
Sorry, I just don't see what's wrong with it.
User avatar #23 to #22 - foelkera ONLINE (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 (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 (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.
User avatar #107 to #30 - dwarfman (07/09/2013) [-]
I like your reply but hate seeing that sodding cult leader again.
#38 to #30 - anon (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 ONLINE (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 (07/09/2013) [-]
0/10
#48 to #43 - anon (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 (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 (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 (07/09/2013) [-]
no u
#61 to #25 - anon (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (07/09/2013) [-]
What's that got to do with the government though?
#42 to #34 - anon (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 (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 (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 (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 (07/09/2013) [-]
But it wasn't the government that fired her. It was the network executives.
User avatar #75 - ImsoObvious (07/09/2013) [-]
the holocaust never happened.

think about it, have you ever saw a hitler in real life before?
User avatar #77 to #76 - ImsoObvious (07/09/2013) [-]
IN PERSON????
User avatar #78 to #77 - satrenkotheone (07/09/2013) [-]
Yes.
User avatar #81 to #78 - ImsoObvious (07/09/2013) [-]
I mean, do you like big fat black cocks in your mouth?
User avatar #82 to #81 - satrenkotheone (07/09/2013) [-]
The reply system doesn't work that way here on Fj.
User avatar #83 to #82 - ImsoObvious (07/09/2013) [-]
i tried
User avatar #85 to #81 - satrenkotheone (07/09/2013) [-]
I'd prefer my partner to be white btw.
User avatar #79 to #78 - ImsoObvious (07/09/2013) [-]
Are you telling the truth?
User avatar #80 to #79 - satrenkotheone (07/09/2013) [-]
All the time.
User avatar #86 to #75 - thechosentroll (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.
#99 - anon (07/09/2013) [-]
Reichpulicans are trying to spy on you so they can monitor your lives and control them. FACT.
User avatar #102 to #99 - keiishiyama (07/09/2013) [-]
Guess again. The Democrats are in power. Neither party cares about the people anymore.
#108 to #102 - anon (07/09/2013) [-]
**** you racist bitch. the democrats don't want this but reichpuiccunts are forcing this one them.
User avatar #111 to #108 - keiishiyama (07/09/2013) [-]
If the Democrats don't want it, then why was the Patriot Act renewed, and why was the NSA not shut down, and why, instead of commending his whistleblowing and taking action against it, is Edward Snowden a criminal for exposing blatant violation of the Constitution?

Your lovely liberals are inveterate ************ , and I hope you enjoy your kool-aid.
#112 to #111 - anon (07/09/2013) [-]
1) it's the republicans calling for snowden's head, I know this because my neighbor is a republican and he has done so
2) democrats can be trusted with the powers of the patriot act, republicans cannot.
3). you probably are some kkk member racist ******* bitch. obama knows what he's doing so get out of his way.
User avatar #113 to #112 - keiishiyama (07/09/2013) [-]
Sure, lemme just step down and let Obama take away what little freedoms I have left. It's not like I enjoy being able to say and think whatever the living **** I want without punishment. No, I'd much rather be a mute slave to this regime's will. Sign me up.

No one can be trusted with the power of the Patriot Act, and said power is not even legal in the first place. Also, Obama is definitely a Democrat, and he wants Snowden, too. Why else would the president ask other nations to refuse asylum?
#74 - anon (07/09/2013) [-]
The US sure has learned a lot from all those NAZI scientists that migrated after WW2 in 1945.
#47 - anon (07/09/2013) [-]
The world will never forget your treachery, the US will be isolated and ****** up. Your decay has already started.
#19 - ddylann (07/09/2013) [-]
but is this actually irony?
User avatar #32 to #19 - fuzzyballs (07/09/2013) [-]
NEIN
[ 120 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)