Politics Questions Fun Technology Entertainment Video Games Sports Movies Science Religion Wepolls Crime Sex Business World Election 2012 All Topics
wepolls Make your voice heard
Sign up/Login 0 points
Synchronicity
Recent Activity
Commented on
Conservatives have been saying lately that women can't shoot shotguns; are they correct?
commented: The pollster should check the premise.

Heather LaCroix is a conservative, and she is experienced with a wide variety of guns, so she is not a typical woman, so she was not a target for Biden's advise, whereas Biden was dispensing advise to the inexperienced women/people who are too ignorant to know Biden is full of shit.

Obviously, women can use shotguns, but shotguns are not easier to aim/use than AR-15s, whereas Biden told women, “You don’t need an AR-15 — it’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use. You don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun.”

Biden told women to buy a double-barreled shotgun, that they're easier to use than an AR-15, that AR-15s are hard to use, that women shouldn't need more than two shots. Biden is full of shit; Biden's advise equates to, "If you want a safe/reliable automobile -- you should have a Pinto with square wheels, not a Volvo with round wheels!"

Here is a female soldier learning how to fire a 12-guage shotgun: youtube.com/watch?v=xgPQNXGFH_A

Here is a dainty little girl learning how to fire an AR-15:
youtube.com/watch?v=aJe1zo9zOr0

Obviously, an AR-15 is easier to handle than a shotgun: any inexperienced person could use an AR-15 -- fire 30 consecutive rounds, at the hip or at the shoulder, while holding it incorrectly -- and pain/kick wouldn't ever become a factor; a person couldn't ever get kicked to ground by an AR-15, and a person wouldn't have to reload after firing two shots.

Obviously, experience goes a long way, and you won't find a sane person who would tell you otherwise, but you're not going to find a sane person in the universe who would ever believe that a 12-guage double-barreled shotgun is easier to handle than an AR-15.

Btw, a young kid has already defended his house and his little sister, with an AR-15, from multiple home invaders: youtube.com/watch?v=6wsQNCjoafY

Could that boy have used a double-barreled shotgun? He probably could have, but that's not the point. The point is: AR-15s are excellent weapons for anybody, they are easier to handle than a double-barreled shotgun, and Biden is full of shit.
2 years ago on March 4, 2013
Voted on
In which movie is the dog dying the saddest?
answered: Hachi: A Dog's Tale
2 years ago on February 25, 2013
Commented on
Obama was raised by his atheist mom and his two atheist grandparents. He didn't go to church until after he moved to Chicago, which he only did in order to run for office. Therefore...
commented: Therefore, Obama is Evil; he's an anti-Christ who abused the trust of good-hearted church goers to advance inhumane/anti-American agendas.
2 years ago on February 25, 2013
Commented on
2016: Biden/Clinton vs Paul/Rubio
commented: @ Paaet...

At one point in time, there was "no doubt" the Earth was flat.

In other words, an ignorant population's doubts, practices, and interpretations -- they are 100% irrelevant to what's factual, thus they are 100% irrelevant to the fact Rubio is not a natural born citizen.

.........

Regarding Rubio's eligibility as a Senator...

A Senator isn't required to be a natural born citizen. Any type of citizen may become eligible for the Senate, but they may only become eligible after meeting specified prerequisites.

The specified prerequisites exist in the U.S. Constitution -- under Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3: therein, it states, "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

Unless Rubio lied to us, Rubio has met those prerequisites, so he is eligible to be a Senator, so nobody has had a reason to argue he isn't eligible to be a Senator.

..........

About the Congressional Research Service quote you've provided, that quote came from Jack Maskell's report: Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement.

Paaet -- when you have direct access to the U.S. Constitution's authors' statements and intentions, how can you justify quoting an ignorant middleman/revisionist who has based his argument on Sir William Blackstone, British common law, and the 14th Amendment?

The most relevant Founding Fathers to this argument were guided by The Law of Nations; they based their logic on Natural Law and National Law -- not British Common Law.

For instance, George Mason, the father of our Bill of Rights, he stated: “We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government.The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.”

With that statement, George Mason severed all potentially perceived connections between England's common law and our Constitution, but Jack Maskell's fifty-three pages long report said nothing about Mason's opposition to British common law, go figure. Maskell touched upon Mason's justifiable fear of foreign usurpers, but Maskell didn't touch upon the more relevant fact: Mason aimed not to equate any part of the U.S. Constitution to British common laws.

What's more, while using the 14th Amendment as a pillar in his argument, Maskell didn't mention John Bingham's name -- not even once. Likewise, he didn't mention Bingham's statements. And, Maskell didn't mention Jacob Howard's direct/objective statements, too, so ... how can you justify dignifying Maskell's extreme level of ignorance by quoting Maskell's ignorant report?

Opposite Jack Maskell's ignorant/irrelevant input, the authors of the U.S. Constitution were directly associated with the legal/historical terms from America's earliest era, so they are the "weight of legal and historical authority", literally. And, the authors of the U.S. Constitution were very outspoken about their intentions:

LYMAN TRUMBULL, co-author of the 13th Amendment, he stated, "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

JACOB HOWARD, the co-author of the 14th Amendment, he stated, "Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country."

How much clearer can Jacob Howard be for you?

Simply put, Bingham and Howard created the 14th Amendment, then Maskell ignored them and distorted their amendment by taking it out-of-context. Maskell's ignored Bingham's and Howard's defined intentions, therefore -- in comparison to Mason, Bingham, Howard, Trumbull -- Jack Maskell's report just "doesn't matter", for it truly is irrelevant to the FACT the founders would not have upheld Rubio or Obama as natural born citizens.
2 years ago on February 25, 2013
Commented on
2016: Biden/Clinton vs Paul/Rubio
commented: I'm not wrong, and I cannot be proven wrong, but I've already shown you how my conclusion is logical and based on facts, facts fortified by the most relevant Founding Father to this argument.

On the other hand, you're diverting the argument toward an irrelevant subject and not addressing the points made; this poll or any future election, they're 100% irrelevant to the points I've made.

Whether people vote for Rubio or not, their act would not change the fact Rubio isn't a natural born citizen and ineligible. And, Obama is a perfect precedent for that particular fact: despite tricking millions of people into voting for him, Obama still isn't a natural born citizen or eligible to be President.

When ineligible anti-American demons break our laws whilst their supporters cheer them on, they don't become eligible, but they only become more disgraceful than they already were.
2 years ago on February 15, 2013
Commented on
2016: Biden/Clinton vs Paul/Rubio
commented: JoAnna_O...

I didn't state an opinion, but I stated a verifiable fact, and I compared that fact to another verifiable fact to reach a logical fact-based conclusion.

FACT #1: When Marco Rubio was born, his parents owed allegiance to Cuba, not to the United States.

FACT #2: The author of the 14th Amendment stated, "all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.."

CONCLUSION: Rubio's parents owed allegiance to another sovereignty, so Rubio is not a natural born citizen.

Now, how haven't you heard of this? Well, that is a very good question that you should probably investigate for yourself, because -- apparently -- I've heard about this, and I know others who've heard about this.

More importantly, whatever your reason for being ignorant about this subject may be, can you put that aside and answer this question: Was John Bingham "qualified" to speak on matters pertaining to "constitutional law"?
2 years ago on February 15, 2013
Commented on
2016: Biden/Clinton vs Paul/Rubio
commented: How could I take anyone's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution over John Bingham's?

After all, John Bingham wrote 14th Amendment, and he stated:

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians."

And, he stated:

"Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...."

...

I mean...

How did having foreign parents with allegiances to a foreign sovereignty render Rubio a citizen with parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty?

At some point in his life, Rubio had to choose between Cuba and the United States, which means Rubio had to naturalize his citizenship(s) in one way or another, which means Rubio is a naturalized citizen in one way or another.

He may be native-born, but that doesn't make him natural born, because natural borns aren't forced to make unnatural decisions between two different homelands.
2 years ago on February 14, 2013
Commented on
2016: Biden/Clinton vs Paul/Rubio
commented: Natural born citizens have parents who hold allegiance to the United States alone.

Rubio was born in 1971, and his parents were naturalized in 1975, which means Rubio's parents held allegiance to Cuba when Rubio was born.

At best, Rubio is a naturalized citizen, and naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President or Vice President.
2 years ago on February 14, 2013
Commented on
2016: Biden/Clinton vs Paul/Rubio
commented: Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen, so he is not eligible to be President or Vice-President.
2 years ago on February 14, 2013
Voted on
Would you vote for a candidate who is not eligible to be president?
answered: No
2 years ago on February 14, 2013
Commented on
Within a small region west of the Solomon Islands, over the past 7 days, 320+ earthquakes have taken place, one as large as an 8.0. WTF is going on down there?
commented: Oops...

It's not 320+ quakes within the Solomon Islands region (320+ was for the entire globe), but it was 125+ for that region.

When I first created the poll, I said it was 125+, then I glanced at the wrong stat and changed the poll to 320+, now I just realized how I had it right the first time.

That said, presently, the stat is at 142 magnitude 2.5+ events in the past 7 days.

Oddly...

117 of the 142 quakes happened within the last 2 days.
142 of the 142 were magnitude 4.6 or higher.
97 of the 142 were magnitude 5.0 or higher.
23 were 5.5 or higher.
8 were 6.0 or higher.
1 was 7.0.
1 was 8.0.
2 years ago on February 8, 2013
Commented on
You're in an elementary school. You're a teacher. Mass shooters are on a rampage and heading in your direction. You've got no where to hide but 25 seconds to make 1 decision. What do you reach for?
commented: Paaet...

The poll doesn't even say where the guns came from, only that they're within reach. In other words, you're trying really hard to nitpick and build a case from nothing.

You're trying really hard to avoid answering the question as it was presented to you, and you're obviously doing so to minimize the poll's point, to keep yourself from having to face the poll's point, to neutralize the poll's point, to assert YOUR bias over the poll's point, to cloud the air for anybody who views the poll.

Can you just stop being a coward and answer the poll's question?
2 years ago on February 4, 2013
Commented on
Do homosexuals have a constitutional right to engage in sodomy? (see video in 'blurb')
commented: @ JDL...

Like Michael Badnarik, I don't like referring to rights as "Constitutional Rights", because that term diverts people into believing the U.S. Constitution grants us our rights, whereas people are actually born with their secured rights, naturally.

...................

@ Paaet...

In your question, "protection" was the best keyword, because the U.S. Constitution protects rights previously declared self-evident and unalienable within the Declaration of Independence.

On one hand, as declared within the Declaration of Independence, our rights are self-evident/unalienable/secured; we are born with our rights to our lives/property/privacy, things the government should not violate. On the other hand, the U.S. Constitution tells our government how our properties are secure against unreasonable acts.

For example, the 4th Amendment states: "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."

The government cannot justly claim you've violated laws, when the government has no evidence you've violated laws. The government cannot justly claim you're violating another person's rights, especially when the other person is arguing you haven't violated their rights. The government cannot justify building an unreasonable case around your pooper or your partner's pooper, because that would be unconstitutional, and -- over the long run -- there could be costly/poopy consequences.

A person has a right to do whatever they want with their properties, as long as they do not harm properties they do not own. And, the government has no reason to claim otherwise, for claiming otherwise would be unreasonable/unconstitutional.

A comment I made under one of your previous polls touches upon privacy in relation to property, here: wepolls.com/p/4457395/...ant-a-right-to-privacy.
2 years ago on February 3, 2013
Commented on
You're in an elementary school. You're a teacher. Mass shooters are on a rampage and heading in your direction. You've got no where to hide but 25 seconds to make 1 decision. What do you reach for?
commented: JDL...

I understand your plan, but the poll is concise.

You have 25 seconds, and you have nowhere to hide.

--You can't hide in darkness.
--You can't hide behind locked doors.
--You can't hide behind bulletproof doors.
--You can't hide in diversions, smoke and mirrors, fairy dust cloaks, etc..
--You can't hide in a confusing labyrinth, and you're not a minotaur.

You have nowhere to hide!

You have 1 choice to make, between 2 objects: you may choose a pair of blunt-tipped scissors [the object that our trusty Department of Homeland Security suggested you may use]; or, you may choose a pair of punishing hand cannons [two trusty items that the right to bear ARMS (not arm) insinuates you may use].

A PAIR OF BLUNT-TIP SCISSORS or A PAIR OF BLUNT-FORCE KIMBERS?

Pick one or the other, because your life depends on it.

--You don't have time to conceptualize booby traps.
--You don't have time to run around flipping electrical switches.
--Breaking windows is pointless, and throwing textbooks is pointless.
--You don't need to draw the shooters toward you, because they're already headed toward you.
--You can't draw the shooters away from you, because you don't have that kind of time.
--You can't distract the shooters with noise, because the sound of screams & gunfire is already overwhelming & deafening.

The premise is set and ready for a simple response, JDL: you've got nowhere to hide and two types of weapons within your reach. (That means: any act which does not involve choosing a weapon only equates to saying, "I like turtles!")
2 years ago on February 2, 2013
Commented on
You're in an elementary school. You're a teacher. Mass shooters are on a rampage and heading in your direction. You've got no where to hide but 25 seconds to make 1 decision. What do you reach for?
commented: "WTF are you talking about? Poll wasn't locked when I voted on it."

If it was unlocked for you, so be it -- I apologize!

................

"Also, if you're the one making this insane biased polls, why aren't you making them under your name?"

Polls speak for themselves.

Now, won't you tell us how you believe this poll is biased?

The way I see it, this poll relates to our present times, directly: we know mass shootings happen in elementary schools; we know elementary schools don't have pointy scissors due to safety regulations; we know the Department of Homeland Security suggested using scissors against mass shooters due to the video that __THEY__ put out.

How could you say this poll is biased?

.................

"You're a psycho. Obviously if I were at a grade school I am not packing heat."

You would allow yourself and everybody around you to be slaughtered, and you accuse others of being psychotic?
2 years ago on February 2, 2013
Commented on
You're in an elementary school. You're a teacher. Mass shooters are on a rampage and heading in your direction. You've got no where to hide but 25 seconds to make 1 decision. What do you reach for?
commented: Once again, Paaet has somehow managed to get around the *DISALLOW ADDING NEW OPTIONS* setting. And, once again, Paaet has deliberately fucked-up the poll, allowing Paaet and others a chance to avoid answering the poll as it was presented.

We'll just have to assume Paaet would use his wonderful fairy magic to escape from mass shooters; if Paaet were stuck in the given scenario, Paaet would simply create a colorful rainbow portal and ride his pet unicorn to safety -- RIGHT PAAET?
2 years ago on January 31, 2013
Voted on
Were the ATL security guard's actions justified?
answered: Yes
2 years ago on January 30, 2013
Commented on
Louisiana has the highest crime rate of any state, and New Orleans has the highest crime rate of any city. Louisiana has the strongest laws in the country in favor of gun rights. How can this be?
commented: Violent Crimes Raw 2011 Accumulations

(w/o attention to averages or population sizes)

#1 Chicago = 27,957
#2 Houston = 20,984
#3 Los Angeles = 20,318
#4 Philadelphia = 18,277
#5 Detroit = 15,263
#6 New York = 12,685
#7 Memphis = 10,350
#8 Indianapolis = 9,211
#9 Baltimore = 8,944
#10 Dallas = 8,341
#11 Phoenix = 8,108
#12 Washington, DC = 7,429
#13 Nashville = 7,280
#14 San Antonio = 7,143
#15 Oakland = 6,712
#16 Atlanta = 6,304
#17 Milwaukee = 5,971
#18 St. Louis = 5,950
#19 Kansas City = 5,534
#20 San Francisco = 5,465
#21 Cleveland = 5,435
#22 San Diego = 5,129

~~~

#?? New Orleans, La = 2,751 = 17.63/1,000
#?? Boise, Id = 510 = 2.43/1,000
#?? Carbondale, Il = 286 = 11.02/1,000
#?? Cheyenne, Wy = 147 = 2.45/1,000


2 years ago on January 28, 2013
Voted on
Would you consider voting Rand Paul for President in 2016?
answered: I considered voting for Rand, now I won't ever vote for him.
2 years ago on January 28, 2013
Commented on
Louisiana has the highest crime rate of any state, and New Orleans has the highest crime rate of any city. Louisiana has the strongest laws in the country in favor of gun rights. How can this be?
commented: States ranked from most to least gun owners...

Gun Owners As Percentage Of Each State's Population
usliberals.about.com/o...-States-Population.htm

1. Wyoming
2. Alaska
3. Montana
4. South Dakota
5. West Virginia
6. Mississippi
6. Idaho
6. Arkansas
9. Alabama
10. North Dakota

11. Kentucky
12. Wisconsin
13. Louisiana
14. Utah
14. Tennessee
16. Oklahoma
16. Iowa
18. South Carolina
19. Kansas
20. Vermont
21. Missouri
21. Minnesota
23. North Carolina
24. Maine
25. Georgia

26. Oregon
27. Indiana
28. Nebraska
29. Michigan
30. Texas
31. Virginia
32. New Mexico
33. Colorado
33. Pennsylvania
35. Nevada
36. Washington
37. Ohio
38. Arizona
39. New Hampshire

40. Delaware
41. Florida
42. California
42. Maryland
44. Illinois
45. New York
46. Connecticut
47. Rhode Island
48. Massachusetts
49. New Jersey
50. Hawaii

2 years ago on January 21, 2013
Commented on
Louisiana has the highest crime rate of any state, and New Orleans has the highest crime rate of any city. Louisiana has the strongest laws in the country in favor of gun rights. How can this be?
commented: And, nobody should trust New York's stats...

Jump in Crime Stats Could Be Sign NYPD Was Fudging Figures
dnainfo.com/new-york/2...pd-was-fudging-figures

Crime Report Manipulation Is Common Among New York Police, Study Finds
nytimes.com/2012/06/29...y-finds.html?_r=3&hpw&

NYPD stats were captain cooked
nypost.com/p/news/loca...ykUWy6gXcPxYl87fGonQoO

NYPD Cops Fudged Crime Stats in Compstat Model Program Now Used in 100s of US Cities
huffingtonpost.com/rob...crime-st_b_452632.html

Manufacturing Low Crime Rates at the NYPD: Reputation Versus Safety Under Bloomberg and Kelly
huffingtonpost.com/eli...-eterno_b_1772489.html

NYPD needs to go further on crime statistics, say Noel Leader of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement
nydailynews.com/news/n...ment-article-1.1009772
2 years ago on January 21, 2013
566points
110 votes on Synchronicity's polls
302 votes by Synchronicity
0 polls created
+154 comment love
Invite Facebook friends