We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Just give the fools anything they want. Don't complain. Then they can be blamed for how they use it. Of course, Iran will only exist for about 90 seconds after they use it, but what the hell. AND if they don't actually use a nuclear weapon, we can listen to them continue to brighten the world by threatening to use it. Kinda makes you all warm and fuzzy feeling inside don't it?
It would be much better to end there hopes of acquiring one right now. We don't want to have to wipe them out AFTER they nuke someone else. A country that is as unstable as they are will be a ticking time bomb in the Middle East. Wouldn't it have been much better if we had stopped Adolf Hitler in 1936?
And who will be the arbiter of who's going to commit crimes in the future? You look like a criminal, crazyyake. Surely you don't mind if we lock you up now, because we think you might commit a crime at some point in the future. Have you ever read, "Minority Report?" BTW... Iran hasn't invaded another country in centuries. More than you can say for many countries.
[1 point]4 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 4 years ago by plawler
Yeah just keep your blinders on. They are threatening to destroy other countries as well as committing acts of terrorism daily. If you think they should have nukes then maybe you should seriously consider moving in with em cause this country won't be a safe place to live.
Did I say I thought they should have nukes? No. Did I say that you shouldn't be allowed to wipe them off the face of the earth because you THINK they might have/use nukes at some indeterminate point in the future. Yes. Again I ask... WHO gets to make that determination that they should be destroyed now because they MIGHT commit a crime? Would it be okay if we incarcerate you now to prevent you from committing a crime in the future?
[1 point]4 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 4 years ago by plawler
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
If you were standing out in your yard building a big cannon and told me,"when I finish this I'm gonna blow up your house and everyone in it". Then by all means you would be arrested and if not then I would do everything in my power to destroy you and your cannon. If the cannon gets blown up and it kills your family then whose fault is it?
Okay... so YOU get to decide if I will be punished for words and thoughts. You sound like you would be much more comfortable in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia than the United States of America.
Threats are words unless they are put into action. I am not saying that actions should not be punished, only that words should not be. Do you think every bully who says, "I'm gonna punch you in the nose" should be jailed for threats, or only if they actually do it?
[1 point]4 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 4 years ago by plawler
Really? I have heard with my own ears my neighbor across the street threaten his mother, his friends, his girlfriend, other neighbors, me, and even police officers on several occasions. He's not in jail, nor has he been in the 15 years that I've lived here.
If every schoolyard bully who made a threat went straight to jail, there wouldn't be enough prisons to hold even a tiny fraction of them.
[1 point]4 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 4 years ago by plawler
They might send you to the looney bin, but (with very few exceptions, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or inciting to riot) they can't send you to jail for speech or thoughts. This is America, not Nazi Germany.
[1 point]4 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 4 years ago by plawler
That's funny cause there is a 16 yr. old South Bend ,Indiana kid sitting in jail right now for just that. Try threatening the President and see how long you stay free.
So... you look like a little threatening to me, crazyyake. You sound a little crazy. Your name is crazy. You have disparaged liberals with some pretty nasty words. Surely it's okay with you if we lock you up for the protection of liberals, because you might make good on those words.
Apparently Pupala and plawler are one and the same. Here is the comment he deleted.
Pupala said, "Please look up the definiton of ad hominem. I was not attacking you crazyyake. I was using an analogy. Sorry, I should have known better than to use a nuanced argument."
Pretty hilarious, I wonder how many libs there really are . . . . 2 or 3 that try to make it look like many?
The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) forbids anyone from interfering by force or by threat of violence with your federal or state constitutional or statutory rights. The acts forbidden by these civil laws may also be criminal acts, and can expose violators to criminal penalties. A list of related criminal statutes is listed further on in this pamphlet.
United States
No. No more than the U.S., Israel, or Pakistan *needs* one. None of us need them. We just want them.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyLike a fish needs a bicycle.
Dang... I was just about to write this. ;o)
How droll, that a man would think to use it! ;-)
Just give the fools anything they want. Don't complain. Then they can be blamed for how they use it. Of course, Iran will only exist for about 90 seconds after they use it, but what the hell. AND if they don't actually use a nuclear weapon, we can listen to them continue to brighten the world by threatening to use it. Kinda makes you all warm and fuzzy feeling inside don't it?
It would be much better to end there hopes of acquiring one right now. We don't want to have to wipe them out AFTER they nuke someone else. A country that is as unstable as they are will be a ticking time bomb in the Middle East. Wouldn't it have been much better if we had stopped Adolf Hitler in 1936?
And who will be the arbiter of who's going to commit crimes in the future? You look like a criminal, crazyyake. Surely you don't mind if we lock you up now, because we think you might commit a crime at some point in the future. Have you ever read, "Minority Report?" BTW... Iran hasn't invaded another country in centuries. More than you can say for many countries.
Yeah just keep your blinders on. They are threatening to destroy other countries as well as committing acts of terrorism daily. If you think they should have nukes then maybe you should seriously consider moving in with em cause this country won't be a safe place to live.
Did I say I thought they should have nukes? No. Did I say that you shouldn't be allowed to wipe them off the face of the earth because you THINK they might have/use nukes at some indeterminate point in the future. Yes. Again I ask... WHO gets to make that determination that they should be destroyed now because they MIGHT commit a crime? Would it be okay if we incarcerate you now to prevent you from committing a crime in the future?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
If you were standing out in your yard building a big cannon and told me,"when I finish this I'm gonna blow up your house and everyone in it". Then by all means you would be arrested and if not then I would do everything in my power to destroy you and your cannon. If the cannon gets blown up and it kills your family then whose fault is it?
Okay... so YOU get to decide if I will be punished for words and thoughts. You sound like you would be much more comfortable in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia than the United States of America.
Words and thoughts? I'm talking about threats and terrorism. I guess to a lib a threat is just another silly word. Sink your head in the sand.
Threats are words unless they are put into action. I am not saying that actions should not be punished, only that words should not be. Do you think every bully who says, "I'm gonna punch you in the nose" should be jailed for threats, or only if they actually do it?
If they make a threat then they should go straight to jail. Try making a threat sometime and you will see the inside of a cell very quickly.
Really? I have heard with my own ears my neighbor across the street threaten his mother, his friends, his girlfriend, other neighbors, me, and even police officers on several occasions. He's not in jail, nor has he been in the 15 years that I've lived here.
If every schoolyard bully who made a threat went straight to jail, there wouldn't be enough prisons to hold even a tiny fraction of them.
Try telling the cops you are going to commit another 9/11 or Columbine and see how long you're free. They are just words!
They might send you to the looney bin, but (with very few exceptions, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or inciting to riot) they can't send you to jail for speech or thoughts. This is America, not Nazi Germany.
That's funny cause there is a 16 yr. old South Bend ,Indiana kid sitting in jail right now for just that. Try threatening the President and see how long you stay free.
Please listen for comprehension. I said "with very few exceptions." That's one of the few.
For terroristic threatening in the first degree:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/508-00/075.PDF
In the second degree:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/508-00/078.PDF
In the third degree:
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/508-00/080.PDF
So... you look like a little threatening to me, crazyyake. You sound a little crazy. Your name is crazy. You have disparaged liberals with some pretty nasty words. Surely it's okay with you if we lock you up for the protection of liberals, because you might make good on those words.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Typical liberal response...lost the argument so you attack the messenger...ad hominem is what your canuck lefty friends call it.
This comment was deleted by Pupala .
[1 point] 4 years ago byApparently Pupala and plawler are one and the same. Here is the comment he deleted.
Pupala said, "Please look up the definiton of ad hominem. I was not attacking you crazyyake. I was using an analogy. Sorry, I should have known better than to use a nuanced argument."
Pretty hilarious, I wonder how many libs there really are . . . . 2 or 3 that try to make it look like many?
The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) forbids anyone from interfering by force or by threat of violence with your federal or state constitutional or statutory rights. The acts forbidden by these civil laws may also be criminal acts, and can expose violators to criminal penalties. A list of related criminal statutes is listed further on in this pamphlet.
WHAT KINDS OF ACTS ARE FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW?
- Threats, verbal or written
- Physical assault or attempted assault
- Graffiti
- Vandalism or property damage
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4722831
To Iran, that's what the USA is doing. Not that we care that much about how Iran feels.
the Iranian don't need them - it only causes new conflicts in the world
Never mind new ones...I still want to know what happened to that nice little cache that the Soviet Union was sitting on after they collapsed...
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[0 points] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyWhy does the UK seem to strongly agree with Iran needing nukes?