Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#4 - igodless (06/18/2013) [-]
let me just check.....yeah i seem to still have all the same freedoms i have always had could you be specific?
#5 to #4 - gjah (06/18/2013) [-]
I never thought I'm going to be teaching Americans about YOUR freedom!

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION part of the BILL OF RIGHTS which guards AGAINST unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any WARRANT to be JUDICIALLY sanctioned and supported by PROBABLE CAUSE.

FOURTH AMENDMENT, ************ , you just lost it!
#174 to #5 - anonymous (06/19/2013) [-]
You aren't teaching anyone. That guy is a troll.
User avatar #51 to #5 - neoexdeath (06/19/2013) [-]
What you fail to understand is the sheer VOLUME of data being broadcasted every minute of every day across the country. Even if they have your porno preferences on file, nobody is ever going to use them unless keywords that make them think you're a terrorist or some **** pop up through a search algorithm. Is it a touch unseemly? Maybe. Is it threatening? Hell no.
#49 to #5 - bswanson (06/19/2013) [-]
Unless you realize the context it was originally meant for. Coming out of the Revolution, most of the Bill of Rights were safe guards against a British re-colonization.

And now at this point, we are a fully functioning country that can stand on its own without the threat of being taken over, so some of the crutches can be scaled back.

Free speech, British won't censor news about the revolution
Bearing arms, British won't take away our guns in order to stifle a revolution
Fourth amendment, British can't post armies in to our daily lives and search people for no good reason.

It's a different world from 1781, and theres a lot more information out there. And they aren't really listening to your calls, they're just compiling a big data base of who calls who, not what you're calling about.

I'm American, and I don't find this discomforting at all.
#129 to #49 - anonymous (06/19/2013) [-]
Except the rights were defined as inalienable, so pretty much everything you said was complete ******** .
#31 to #5 - anonymous (06/19/2013) [-]
Read about US vs Choate and Smith vs Maryland, SCOTUS opinions on this issue. You really need a proper understanding of the 4th amendment and its history in the courts. Nothing that the NSA has been doing is illegal or unconstitutional and if anything is preventing further disasters which allow us to keep our other rights (the failure of which leads to the Boston martial law situation).
User avatar #11 to #5 - patchesdacrazy (06/19/2013) [-]
Food for Thought: What exactly would the government hope to gain by listening in on our phone calls? Or by putting Boston under lock down to storm the streets and invade homes? Kinda self destructive in a country where half your citizens are armed and encouraged to overthrow an over bearing government, don't you think?
#21 to #11 - akimbobears (06/19/2013) [-]
You seem to have confused politicians for people that believe that the things they do have consequences. A common misconception so i'll let it slide.
Clearly they thought they could hide it.
User avatar #15 to #11 - traelos ONLINE (06/19/2013) [-]
Listening to phone calls catches criminals.

Putting Boston under lock prevented Dzhokhar Tsarnaev from shooting or taking a hostage of an innocent bystander.

I mean disagreeing with those actions may make you stupid, but its not your fault for being born that way, not even knowing why they did them makes you ignorant and there's no excuse for that.
#64 to #15 - gjah (06/19/2013) [-]
You are pathetic, like a sheep might I say.
These are EXACTLY the same things communist, fascist and NS totalitarian states did.

You are losing your freedom, your government is turning totalitarian, while you sit at home and support this.... And you are calling others stupid?
#290 to #64 - patchesdacrazy (06/19/2013) [-]
I will gladly call you stupid.

#294 to #290 - gjah (06/19/2013) [-]
How can you call me stupid when I'm smarter than you?
User avatar #296 to #294 - patchesdacrazy (06/19/2013) [-]
Because your only comeback is "Im smarter than you". I have yet to meet an intelligent person to say that to any person, no matter their cleverness.
#297 to #296 - gjah (06/19/2013) [-]
Well you support your government in spying against it's own citizens and I support real freedom of citizens. Pretty much clear indication of my intelligence, or lack of yours if you think totalitarian government could ever be good.
You are extremly annoying though.
User avatar #298 to #297 - patchesdacrazy (06/19/2013) [-]
Now we're talking.

No, I don't support my government "spying" on our calls. I also have a problem with how they could skim by the rules by rewriting some to track numbers making frequent calls to "areas of interest". However, I understand that there is nothing they could do without a warrant. This includes any form of search, seizures and arrest. Its a terror scare that started with Vietnam and the Anti war protest **** , now being used for the "War on Terror"

Unless you can tell me of one case where someone got dragged off in the middle of the night for calling Obama a dirty name?
#299 to #298 - gjah (06/19/2013) [-]
Well I can't tell you who got dragged off in the middle of the night, but I've heard about 14 years old kid facing up to a year in jail for wearing NRA shirt to school. Sounds pretty totalitarian to me.
news.yahoo.com/14-old-kid-arrested-over-pro-nra-shirt-071819724.html

It's 2 a.m. here and I'm studying for exam on friday, so I really don't have time for lengthy conversations
User avatar #300 to #299 - patchesdacrazy (06/20/2013) [-]
... come on, you are gonna pull the "Im smarter than you" card and your not even going to read the article you sent me?

So in public schooling, because of the way they are funded/setup, they have the ability to strip you of certain rights. (Amendments 1,2, 4, and 8 are the big ones that come to mind). Its weird, and I don't really remember how, but its legal. Anyhoo, the school is able to dictate what they can wear, and what the may not. How the officer got involved is beyond me, but the kid was in the wrong, should have taken off the shirt. The cop is ******* nuts too if he can't handle an 8th grader about his shirt, and has to take it to court to tell a judge, "He yelled at me." Id actually pay money to see that.

Not Totalitarian, just a media head line to get you to read a stupid story of stupid people. Or rather... a stupid cop.
#301 to #300 - gjah (06/20/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be any problems whatsoever if kid wore "protect your rights" shirt with rainbow instead of gun.

IMO, freedom of speech shouldn't end where someone's feelings begin and I firmly stand behind this statement. I just simply can't imagine having any sort of problems in public school in my country for expressing opinions.
You can't just limit this one fundamental freedom of democracy based on current
trends of governments.

On the other note, about the NSA scandal, I can't imagine giving away my privacy because of being scared about possible terrorist attack.
I mean what's next? Identification checkpoints on major roads? CCTV in major cities (like London UK)? Police equipted with assault rifles and martial law? No thanks, I'll take my chances with terrorist attack, I prefer 95% safety and privacy over the 100% safety and fascism.
But maybe it's just me...
#6 to #5 - igodless (06/18/2013) [-]
you are mistaken sir no one has searched my property without my consent
if you are refering to the internet the 4th amendment was not written to protect any kind of internet privacy
it was written to prevent the police and the government from entering my home or other ACTUAL property without a warrant
User avatar #35 to #6 - keiishiyama (06/19/2013) [-]
So our rights to reasonable expectations of privacy are suddenly void simply because we're on Chrome and Firefox? I hope you don't actually believe that ******** .
#33 to #6 - anonymous (06/19/2013) [-]
So..regarding "the internets" your laws and amendments dont qualify? It is just a free for all? Thats a strange way to see it since everything is online. Of course it qualifys for your onlinelife aswell. You lost it but dont even get it.
#8 to #6 - gjah (06/18/2013) [-]
Boston citizens during martial law beg to differ.

As if that isn't enough, you got your very own government stealing your phone records, Microsoft and Facebook information.
#20 to #8 - orionthegreat (06/19/2013) [-]
How many Bostonians do you know who were protesting what happened? Those guys attacked Boston on its most important day, at an event that had nothing to do with whatever is going on the Middle East, and killed a child that had never done anything wrong. They all knew that for the good of the city and country in general that they should stay inside so that it would be easier for the police to look for the terrorists. The only places I've heard backlash against the way police handled the situation is from the internet, not those people who had to deal with the horrible tragedy in Boston.
#17 to #8 - anonymous (06/19/2013) [-]
I thought the Boston citizens could go out whenever they wanted to, just that it would be better if they stayed inside during that bombing.
#14 to #8 - captnpl (06/19/2013) [-]
They could already "steal" facebook info, 99% of the population just blindly accepts any friend request they get. This would just make it more efficient.
#10 to #8 - anonymous (06/19/2013) [-]
And yet we are still so very much better. and to be honest, i dont care if they are listening to me on the phone or checking my internet usage... i just play video games and watch porn, nothing that they care about. worse case scenario...they fap at the same time i am
 Friends (0)