Presidential Poll - (This one's not anonymous)

[Beeewbs]

This also happened with the last poll, someone came in and gave Perry or Romney (I don't remember) about 50 votes in 2 minutes, and then people like OP have the nerve to say Ron Paul supporters are dishonest and spam the polls


Take a look at the names of the Bachmann voters...

What say you now OP?


in4 no response.

The whole poll seems screwy, and I'm sure your RP bots didn't help things.

(continued)

10/21/2011 - His belief in numerology (45 is his number); Says "signs from above" have guided his life.
10/21/2011 - His relationship to Rod Parsley, an islamophobic pastor.
10/21/2011 - He says that his 9-9-9 plan will no longer flat and fair; now gives exemptions for poor areas.
10/22/2011 - He spent $100,000 of donor money to buy his OWN book, boosting sales and lining his own pockets.
10/22/2011 - His lack of understanding how the Constitution is amended.
10/24/2011 - His ambiguous statement that abortion should be illegal, but ALSO a woman's choice.
10/24/2011 - Cain says that flip-flopping proves that he is presidential.
10/24/2011 - He spent millions of dollars running on racist political ads in 2004 and 2006.
10/24/2011 - The lack of a serious organization in many states.
10/24/2011 - He gets his news from a one-page report of international concerns "almost every day."
10/30/2011 - He complains that campaigning is "too tough." Just you wait, Mr. Cain.
10/30/2011 - His campaign may have violated Federal campaign finance laws.
10/31/2011 - His belief that China is "working on a nuclear program" when they've had nukes since 1964.
11/01/2011 - Cain voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.
11/01/2011 - He says that he will surround Iran with warships & point ballistic missiles at them until they retaliate.
11/01/2011 - His campaign manager, Mark Block, is exposed for a 1997 election scandal in Wisconsin.
11/03/2011 - He met in a 1-on-1 breakfast meeting with globalist war-criminal, Henry Kissinger.
11/04/2011 - His statement that he's a "Koch Brother from another mother."
11/05/2011 - His inability to distinguish between defined benefit plan and premium support plan when speaking of medicare reform.
11/11/2011 - He says he'd like to be Secretary of Defense so he could build up the already bloated military.
11/13/2011 - He likened himself to Moses being commanded by God to run for office.
11/14/2011 - He stated that the majority of Muslims have extremist views.
11/14/2011 - He has no discernible plan for Libya; yet is critical of Obama.
11/14/2011 - He is puzzled at Ron Paul for wanting to end Federal agencies. "Can't we fix something?"
11/14/2011 - He backs collective bargaining for Federal employees.
11/15/2011 - He offered Henry Kissinger a position as Secretary of State.
11/16/2011 - He said, "I'm Not Supposed To Know Anything About Foreign Policy."
11/19/2011 - He said in a speech that he was afraid of foreign-sounding names



The sexual harassment saga
10/30/2011 - Politico breaks a story about sexual harassment settlements that took place in the late 1990s.
10/31/2011 - Responding to question, Cain asks interviewer, "Have YOU ever been accused of sexual harassment?"
11/xx/2011 - He repeatedly changed his story throughout the course of this whole harassment story.
11/01/2011 - The National Restaurant Assn. paid a woman $35,000 to settle a harassment dispute against Cain in the late 1990s.
11/01/2011 - He calls the coverage of the harassment settlements a "witch hunt"
11/01/2011 - He first says he has no knowledge of any settlements and then recalls them later the same day.
11/02/2011 - Cain accuses Rick Perry's campaign of exposing his settlements (without evidence)
11/02/2011 - Cain accuses Rahm Emmanuel of exposing his settlements (without evidence)
11/02/2011 - An Iowa radio host accuses Cain of inappropriate remarks toward two female staff members.
11/02/2011 - An Oklahoma consultant claims that he witnessed Cain harassing women in the 1990s.
11/03/2011 - The National Restaurant Assn. paid a woman $45,000 to settle a harassment dispute against Cain in the late 1990s.
11/03/2011 - Cain threatens to sue Politico for reporting about factual settlements from the 1990s.
11/05/2011 - He demanded that the sexual harassment stories be taken off the table.
11/05/2011 - He had his campaign manager send the guide to jounalistic ethics to reporters who keep asking about the sexual harassment charges.
11/07/2011 - Another accuser, Sharon Bialek, says he grabbed her head and pushed it toward his crotch.
11/07/2011 - Donna Donella said Cain tried to get her to set him up on a date with a woman at a seminar in Egypt in 2002.
11/08/2011 - Karen Kraushaar comes forward as receiving one of the settlements.
11/09/2011 - Cain's campaign manager lies on TV to make one of the accusers look less credible.
11/14/2011 - A witness reaffirms that Sharon Bialek told him in 1997 about being "inappropriately touched" by Cain.

10/04/2011 - Cain once said that Tiger Woods should run for president because of his personal attributes. The same Tiger Woods that cheated on his spouse with everything that had a pulse.

It's taken out of context, just like I take things out of context for Ron Paul.

[kusok]

The whole poll seems screwy, and I'm sure your RP bots didn't help things.




It's taken out of context, just like I take things out of context for Ron Paul.

Take a look at the names, if anything Obama and Bachmann supporters trolled.


Which point(s) is taken out of context? Give an example.

[wannabswole123]

Source for which fact?

That CIA has been overthrowing governments and installing puppet military regime dictators who give up the oil as instructed? That you don't need sources for, just google it, it's in every history book or even Wiki. Start with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Cliffs ^^^ :
- Iran says F U to the West and wants to have rights to it's oil.
- CIA and it's boyfriend England who steal the oil are mad.
- CIA overthrows the government.
- Iranian people are outraged and take revenge on US years later.


Source that there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq? Common knowledge. But guess what! There is Al Qaeda there NOW You see what we did? We made it WORSE by sticking our nose in other countries' business.

Source that there were no WMDs? I don't know if you're serious about this one. Everyone knows this.

So, which details do you need sources on?

Seriously? You just do not give up do you? I have watched you attempt to belittle, insult, and attempt to "enlighten" others with your marvelous knowledge. You seemingly think you have all the facts down. Thing is, I have not heard you say anything outside of youtube debate lines. You provide nothing to support your views. Wikipedia and youtube videos are not credible sources.

[Ashton117]

Seriously? You just do not give up do you? I have watched you attempt to belittle, insult, and attempt to "enlighten" others with your marvelous knowledge. You seemingly think you have all the facts down. Thing is, I have not heard you say anything outside of youtube debate lines. You provide nothing to support your views. Wikipedia and youtube videos are not credible sources.

Everyone knows about the US overthrow of the Iranian government. Pretty much common knowledge.

[yg7s7]

Seriously? You just do not give up do you? I have watched you attempt to belittle, insult, and attempt to "enlighten" others with your marvelous knowledge. You seemingly think you have all the facts down. Thing is, I have not heard you say anything outside of youtube debate lines. You provide nothing to support your views. Wikipedia and youtube videos are not credible sources.

and the government is?

[nutsy54]

Everyone knows about the US overthrow of the Iranian government. Pretty much common knowledge.

Pretty damn big difference between the US being involved in the Iranian overthrow, and the Conspiracy-spewing rantings of Kusok which declared "That CIA has been overthrowing governments and installing puppet military regime dictators who give up the oil as instructed?"

[kusok]

Pretty damn big difference between the US being involved in the Iranian overthrow, and the Conspiracy-spewing rantings of Kusok which declared "That CIA has been overthrowing governments and installing puppet military regime dictators who give up the oil as instructed?"

I don't understand. What is the difference? Let's start with this simple question: Do you dispute that CIA and England sent in the coup to overthrow Iranian government when Iran wanted to keep their oil in 1953 and installed a dictator because the West was relying on Iranian oil, or not?

[kusok]

Seriously? You just do not give up do you? I have watched you attempt to belittle, insult, and attempt to "enlighten" others with your marvelous knowledge. You seemingly think you have all the facts down. Thing is, I have not heard you say anything outside of youtube debate lines. You provide nothing to support your views. Wikipedia and youtube videos are not credible sources.

???

Same question as to Nutsy: Do you dispute that the CIA sent in the coup to overthrow Iranian government in 1953 when Iran changed the oil policy, and installed the military dictator?

[nutsy54]

I don't understand. What is the difference? Let's start with this simple question: Do you dispute that CIA and England sent in the coup to overthrow Iranian government when Iran wanted to keep their oil in 1953 and installed a dictator because the West was relying on Iranian oil, or not?

Your CT rant was for multiple events, occurring throughout the Middle East (world?), fixated on a pretense that we're ravaging the planet for it's oil supplies. And then you "proved" that with a single example that occurred 60 years ago

In before the standard CT tactic of fixating on one irrelevant detail that I'll be expected to "disprove", while you completely ignore the overall statement I made.

[kusok]

Your CT rant was for multiple events, occurring throughout the Middle East (world?), fixated on a pretense that we're ravaging the planet for it's oil supplies. And then you "proved" that with a single example that occurred 60 years ago

In before the standard CT tactic of fixating on one irrelevant detail that I'll be expected to "disprove", while you completely ignore the overall statement I made.

How is this event irrelevant? It's exactly what I claimed it is. CIA overthrew a government and installed a military dictator for oil. Unless you wish to dispute this historical fact? Yes or no?

Your next backpedalling appears to be that if something happened 60 years ago, it doesn't matter? Why not? Did we have a regime change or something?

Your final straw appears to be that it's an isolated event. Explain to me what happened in Libya just now? Did US spread democracy? Or can it be that Libya is the largest African oil place? What do you think? Enlighten me. Afghanistan? Iraq? US did the overthrow in about a dozen countries actually. Do you disagree?

[wannabswole123]

How is this event irrelevant? It's exactly what I claimed it is. CIA overthrew a government and installed a military dictator for oil. Unless you wish to dispute this historical fact? Yes or no?

Your next backpedalling appears to be that if something happened 60 years ago, it doesn't matter? Why not? Did we have a regime change or something?

Your final straw appears to be that it's an isolated event. Explain to me what happened in Libya just now? Did US spread democracy? Or can it be that Libya is the largest African oil place? What do you think? Enlighten me. Afghanistan? Iraq? US did the overthrow in about a dozen countries actually. Do you disagree?

Since I actually had a good minute to sit down and somewhat meticulously read through your "source", I came to a couple conclusions.
First and foremost, anyone of sound academic mind knows that wikipedia is not an acceptable source for use in any professional research setting. Next, while there was mention, that the one of the possibilities the United States decided to intervene was based on the nationalization of Iran's oil supply, it was also duly noted that the american oil companies were not in favor of participation within Iran, due to competing interest from other countries in the region. Next, your oil-centered theory, while documented, is contradictory to another theory presented in your "source"; at the time all of this was occuring, the cold-war was front and center with regards to that area of the world. Stating at the time, Iran was the only obstacle standing in the way of the USSR and persian oil. It was a large-scale foreign policy intention that the USSR not gain a foothold in Iran. To prevent that, it was seen as a stabilizing force to keep United States oil companies operating within the region to keep USSR influence at bay.

So, with all of that being said, Wikipedia is highly opinionated, with even some strong statements lacking citations, and the sources consisting of various books, and interviews. I highly suggest you refrain from extrapolating details which you see fit to promote your agenda. As much as you jumped at the couple statements regarding oil, there equally opposing, if not more countering opinions on the event. I'm done with you. You have proved nothing but the ability to make absurd highly unstantiated claims.

[kusok]

Since I actually had a good minute to sit down and somewhat meticulously read through your "source", I came to a couple conclusions.
First and foremost, anyone of sound academic mind knows that wikipedia is not an acceptable source for use in any professional research setting. Next, while there was mention, that the one of the possibilities the United States decided to intervene was based on the nationalization of Iran's oil supply, it was also duly noted that the american oil companies were not in favor of participation within Iran, due to competing interest from other countries in the region. Next, your oil-centered theory, while documented, is contradictory to another theory presented in your "source"; at the time all of this was occuring, the cold-war was front and center with regards to that area of the world. Stating at the time, Iran was the only obstacle standing in the way of the USSR and persian oil. It was a large-scale foreign policy intention that the USSR not gain a foothold in Iran. To prevent that, it was seen as a stabilizing force to keep United States oil companies operating within the region to keep USSR influence at bay.

So, with all of that being said, Wikipedia is highly opinionated, with even some strong statements lacking citations, and the sources consisting of various books, and interviews. I highly suggest you refrain from extrapolating details which you see fit to promote your agenda. As much as you jumped at the couple statements regarding oil, there equally opposing, if not more countering opinions on the event. I'm done with you. You have proved nothing but the ability to make absurd highly unstantiated claims.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world...cia-index.html

http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/new...ommunism-sham/