Democratic primary poll

[0ojakeo0]

vote!

[unriggable]

Barracks Osama.

[jay_a2j]

RON PAUL!

[unriggable]

RON PAUL!

Concerning your signature: how do you mispell a word without a pencil?

[Snorri1234]

Barack.

[jay_a2j]

RON PAUL!

Concerning your signature: how do you mispell a word without a pencil?

If you misspell a word, is it the pencil's fault? No more than if you shoot someone it is the guns fault.


Also, you can use a pen.

[Snorri1234]

If you misspell a word, is it the pencil's fault? No more than if you shoot someone it is the guns fault.

It's not the pencil's fault, but you wouldn't misspell the word if you didn't have a pencil.

[OnlyAmbrose]

RON PAUL!

Concerning your signature: how do you mispell a word without a pencil?

If you misspell a word, is it the pencil's fault? No more than if you shoot someone it is the guns fault.


Also, you can use a pen.

I'm all for second amendment, but it is a false analogy. I'd say that the consequences of making a mistake with a pencil and killing someone with a gun are pretty different.

[gryffin13]

RON PAUL!

Concerning your signature: how do you mispell a word without a pencil?

If you misspell a word, is it the pencil's fault? No more than if you shoot someone it is the guns fault.


Also, you can use a pen.

I'm all for second amendment, but it is a false analogy. I'd say that the consequences of making a mistake with a pencil and killing someone with a gun are pretty different.

it's not implying that the consequences are the same, its just pointing out that guns are not responsible for peoples deaths, its the people who can't handle guns that are responsible. I assume it's an anti-gun control signature?

[Skittles!]

Guns kill people even with someone that knows how to handle one. Ever heard of WAR, jay? Those people are trained with guns, what for? Oh, that's right, to kill.

Guns are made for killing. You can't say that it isn't.

[Neutrino]

Since this thread is already offtopic and looks destined to stay there...

I've always considered Jay's signature to be particularly nonsensical. Yes, pencils misspell words. However, this is not their primary function. Misspelling is an abberation to be hunted down and terminated by all sentient individuals. Guns have precisely one purpose, and that is to kill. The killing action of a gun is not an unfortunate sideffect; it is a direct result of the gun being fired. How you can justify the intended function of one instrument with the misfunction of another is beyond me.

p.s. The second part of your signature is equally crap.

[CrazyAnglican]

RON PAUL!

Concerning your signature: how do you mispell a word without a pencil?

verbally.

[Dancing Mustard]

Since this thread is already offtopic and looks destined to stay there...

I've always considered Jay's signature to be particularly nonsensical. Yes, pencils misspell words. However, this is not their primary function. Misspelling is an abberation to be hunted down and terminated by all sentient individuals. Guns have precisely one purpose, and that is to kill. The killing action of a gun is not an unfortunate sideffect; it is a direct result of the gun being fired. How you can justify the intended function of one instrument with the misfunction of another is beyond me.

p.s. The second part of your signature is equally crap.

Word up.

The signature also fails to note that without the pencil nobody would be capable of mispelling anything. Just as, without guns, nobody would be capable of commiting mass public shootings. Yes yes, I know that the we-love-guns lobby will immediately cry 'they could have killed some other way! And they would have too!'... but that fails to accept the reality that you just can't perpetrate a mass public killing with a bread-knife. Columbine with meat-cleavers? Dunblaine with Cricket Bats? V-Tech with sticks and stones? Unlikely events I'd say.

It's just physically impossible to massacre double-figures of people in under five minutes when you don't have a gun. That's the ugly truth at the bottom of the 'legalise firearms' debate. Incidences of crime don't really matter too much, because the debate ought to be focusing around this particular type of high-impact crime which is entirely unique to handgun weilding offenders.

No matter how hard people wriggle and whine about it, and no matter how often they come up with bizarre pencil analogies, you can't deny that not having access to guns makes it near impossible for most people to perpetrate mass murder; at the very least, it makes mass killings significantly less likely. But just watch, we'll be hard-pressed to get a sensible answer from Jay on this topic...

*Prepares for an angry backlash of illogical "but I like my gun and don't want to lose it because the Pentagon is inside my head and trying to steal my mind with oppression rays" humbug*

[Norse]

Columbine with meat-cleavers? Dunblaine with Cricket Bats? V-Tech with sticks and stones? Unlikely events I'd say.

Win win win.

However, as serious as the events were, they would have been amusing with the scenarios listed here.

[Chris7He]

Since this thread is already offtopic and looks destined to stay there...

I've always considered Jay's signature to be particularly nonsensical. Yes, pencils misspell words. However, this is not their primary function. Misspelling is an abberation to be hunted down and terminated by all sentient individuals. Guns have precisely one purpose, and that is to kill. The killing action of a gun is not an unfortunate sideffect; it is a direct result of the gun being fired. How you can justify the intended function of one instrument with the misfunction of another is beyond me.

p.s. The second part of your signature is equally crap.

Word up.

The signature also fails to note that without the pencil nobody would be capable of mispelling anything. Just as, without guns, nobody would be capable of commiting mass public shootings. Yes yes, I know that the we-love-guns lobby will immediately cry 'they could have killed some other way! And they would have too!'... but that fails to accept the reality that you just can't perpetrate a mass public killing with a bread-knife. Columbine with meat-cleavers? Dunblaine with Cricket Bats? V-Tech with sticks and stones? Unlikely events I'd say.

It's just physically impossible to massacre double-figures of people in under five minutes when you don't have a gun. That's the ugly truth at the bottom of the 'legalise firearms' debate. Incidences of crime don't really matter too much, because the debate ought to be focusing around this particular type of high-impact crime which is entirely unique to handgun weilding offenders.

No matter how hard people wriggle and whine about it, and no matter how often they come up with bizarre pencil analogies, you can't deny that not having access to guns makes it near impossible for most people to perpetrate mass murder; at the very least, it makes mass killings significantly less likely. But just watch, we'll be hard-pressed to get a sensible answer from Jay on this topic...

*Prepares for an angry backlash of illogical "but I like my gun and don't want to lose it because the Pentagon is inside my head and trying to steal my mind with oppression rays" humbug*

Then how come statistics show that any attempt to try to utilize gun control results in more violence. We can face the REAL truth and know that guns will always be out there. The most we can do is to stop distributing them.

[Dancing Mustard]

Then how come statistics show that any attempt to try to utilize gun control results in more violence.

Tee hee, here they come...

Evidence to support your claims please. Remember statistics that you imagined and made up in your head don't count. At the moment you're just a child making up 'facts' because you really really want to own a gun.

Come back when you know what you're talking about, and can evidence your claims. I doubt we'll be seeing you soon.

[btownmeggy]

I'm absolutely undecided as to who I'll vote for in the primary, not that it matters because I don't live in any of the incredibly non-representative states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina.

Since way-early-on, long before he announced, I've been for Richardson. I think he's been a great governor in NM, and his foreign policy experience is unrivaled by any of the candidates, and practically any politician in the United States. He's been anti-Iraq War since day one and has made it a focal point of his campaign. But, it became clear several months ago he doesn't have a chance.

I think Edwards is incoherent and opportunistic.

Clinton is in general much too conservative for my taste, but I like her health care plan much better than anyone else's. In fact, her proposal is the only respectable one out of any major candidate's.

Biden, the poor little goof-ball, has an excellent plan for Iraq, and is a competent politician when he can get his foot out of his mouth. He also has no chance, of course. However, he's still a senator and his federalism plan may still come to fruition... we can hope.

Obama is very charismatic and I think symbolically would improve the US's image in the world. He claims to be all about change, but he doesn't have much of anything revolutionary to say.

[Chris7He]

It seems as if there are neither women nor Democrats on the Internet...

[unriggable]

It seems as if there are neither women nor Democrats on the Internet...

Look at the graph in the republican thread. You'd think that a bigger image would turn more heads, but you ignored it completely.

[Dancing Mustard]

Look at the graph in the republican thread. You'd think that a bigger image would turn more heads, but you ignored it completely.

Nah... f*ck it, let's just drag it over here and make sure that the bonkers "more guns=less shooting" crowd see it: