Forgot your password?

Who is Your Favorite Avenger?

Displaying poll results.
Thor
  1999 votes / 7%
Iron Man
  6647 votes / 25%
Hulk
  1533 votes / 5%
Captain America
  1741 votes / 6%
Hawkeye
  830 votes / 3%
Black Widow
  674 votes / 2%
Wasp
  321 votes / 1%
Uma Thurman
  12339 votes / 47%
26084 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Who is Your Favorite Avenger?

Comments Filter:
  • by Baloroth (2370816) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @08:44PM (#36903456)

    Yes, he means the Second Amendment [wikipedia.org], that was ratified together with the other first ten as the Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org]. So, if you mean it wasn't ratified the same way as XI-XXVII were, then yes, I suppose. If you mean the same way as, say, the First Amendment prohibiting restrictions on freedom of speech or free exercise of religion, or the Fourth, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, than no, it was ratified exactly the same way.

    Interestingly enough, those also happen to be 2 other of the most ignored parts of the US Constitution. Actually, never mind, that would be the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly states that any rights not granted to the Federal government or restricted from the states belongs to the states or to the people. You know, the amendment that more or less strictly forbids... hell, just about everything the federal government does these days except maybe defense and building roads. The federal government does still build roads, right? I'm a little confused, since it seems they mainly just give money to corporations or pass laws protecting copyright these days .

  • Re:Black Panther? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TechnoLuddite (854235) on Wednesday July 27, 2011 @10:21PM (#36904002)
    Weeeelll ... my guess would be because:

    Thor, Iron Man, Ant Man, Wasp, the Hulk, Captain America, Hawkeye, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, the Swordsman, Giant-Man I, Giant-Man II, Hercules, Black Panther, Vision, the Black Knight, Black Widow, Mantis, the Beast, Moondragon, Hellcat, the Two-Gun Kid, Wonder Man, Yellowjacket, Ms. Marvel, Falcon, Tigra, She-Hulk, Captain Marvel II, Dr. Druid, Namor, Starfox, Mockingbird, the Thing, War Machine, Moon Knight, Firebird, Demoliton Man, the Forgotten One, Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman, US Agent, Quasar, the Human Torch, Sersi, Stingray, Spider-man, Sandman, Rage, Machine Man, the Living Lightning, Spider-woman, Crystal, Thunderstrike, Darkhawk, Justice, Firestar, Triathlon, Silverclaw, Jack of Hearts, Ant-Man II, Captain Britain, Luke Cage, Sentry, Echo, Ares, Amadeus Cho, Stature, Valkyrie, Sharon Carter, Nova, Iron Fist, Power Woman, Protector, Dr. Strange, and Red Hulk

    would be nigh to impossible to all get in the same movie ... particularly as some of them are the same person.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28, 2011 @12:27AM (#36904660)

    The problem with the second amendment isn't the original intent, it's that those with that original intent could not have imagined what the word arms would come to represent. The fact is we have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to weapon ownership. Where we draw the line is debatable, but I've yet to meet one person who would advocate an individual's right to own nuclear weapons. If you consider that the far end of the continuum of arms and the muskets and rifles the original framers of the constitution understood to be arms on the other end, somewhere in between is the demarcation line of what people should be allowed to own.

    Unless you're willing to concede that all weapons, including nuclear, biological, chemical and everything that mankind thinks up in the future, are fair game for individuals to own, you can't be upset about people arguing where that line should be drawn just because the weapons you want to own are on the wrong side.

    So, to all the 2nd amendment proponents out there...do you support the right to own nukes and anthrax/serin/etc? If not, what rationale do you have for saying that the lines should be drawn excluding those arms while including assault rifles and the like?

  • From where/when? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dltaylor (7510) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @03:05AM (#36905354)

    first "Avenger" I had a bit of a crush on: Diana Rigg as Emma Peel

    hottest drawn image from the Marvel Avengers: Black Widow (I DO love a redhead).

    character of the set that I'd most rather have as an SO: Wasp (physically attractive, rich, and, man, what an attitude, 'specially in the current animated series; too bad she's got a thing for Pym).

  • Missing Option (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jwysock3 (568875) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @07:59AM (#36906858)
    The Toxic Avenger: http://www.toxicavenger.com/ [toxicavenger.com]
  • by cusco (717999) <brian...bixby@@@gmail...com> on Thursday July 28, 2011 @09:54AM (#36908280)
    'Arms', as intended in the Second Amendment, included such things as rifled cannons with exploding cannon balls and some flame-shooting contraption that I forget the name of (cutting edge military tech of the day). Privately owned merchant ships weren't followed around by the nascent US Navy like their private bodyguards the way they are today. They were expected to defend themselves, as were rural communities and frontier outposts. In those days 'the town hall cannon' was more than just a decoration, it was expected to be used against brigands, pirates, Indian raiders and any other roving marauders that might threaten the community.

    I have no problem if you dislike or distrust the Second Amendment, but don't try to do an end run around it. Repeal it or change it, pretending it means something different or that it can be ignored just opens the door for abuse of the other parts of the Bill of Rights. It's not a stretch from banning types of personal weapons that you don't like to banning types of speech you don't like, religions you don't like, or political parties you don't like. One is a clear precedent for the other.
  • by Killall -9 Bash (622952) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @02:46PM (#36912666)
    You are confused.

    The 2nd amendment doesn't grant us the right to bear arms (leaving us to squabble over the deffinition of "arms").

    Being born gives you the right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment was a promise, from the yet-to-be-formed federal government, that it would not abridge that right.

    So much for promises.

The Universe is populated by stable things. -- Richard Dawkins

 



Forgot your password?
Working...