Bombshell: Obama.com Owned by Bundler in Shanghai with Business Ties to Chinese Government

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn
 
Get them both.


Disqualify them both, I would be much happier with an old farmer running the country.




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 

Wow. Good work! Now THAT is called checking sources - what journalists are supposed to do. Thank you. I intensely dislike scammy hit-pieces on ALL candidates - they muddy the waters of Democracy and serve no purpose but to inflame opinion and clutter up the dialogue. They make the originators of the articles look bad, frankly. It points out an agenda that is less than honest, and more about stirring the pot. There are those on "the left" who do this as well - and they are equally wrong.

peace,
AB



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


I am not really that troubled by a domain that links people to Obama's donation page so foreigners can make donations. It's actually kind of goofy. If millions of foreigners made 100 dollar donations it wouldn't mean anything except Obama has more money to spend. It's when one foreigner and higher up from whatever country makes a one million dollar donation that we should worry about. That's when favors are owed.

Maybe I am misunderstanding because I can't read it all on my phone. The fear of foreign donations isn't because the candidate gets more money from a bunch of people he won't do anything for.. it's because politicians from other countries or the ultra wealthy from other countries can pocket a favor from the president.

I am more worried about Romney's meeting with diamond mine owners in Israel than I am about foreigners being able to give Obama 50 dollar donations. Again, maybe I am missing something.

Either way I am sure they all do it and they are all owned anyway so it what's the point of being concerned over this if you aren't concerned over every aspect of the chosen candidate in the two party system?



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT
[Difference:
The Romney site INCLUDES the CVV Security code for credit card donations.
The Obama site hes INTENTIONALLY OMITTED the CVV code.

But, i'm sure you really already knew this.


Sure I did, as did you and anyone that took the time to read this fair and balanced report that was 'released' to the public today.

However I have yet to see much in the way of anger over this practice also being done by the Republicans, which has been my point. Everyone is hopping mad over the possibility of Obama wrong doing over the lack of CVV usage in online campaign donations. Right?? But where is the same condemnation over the republican candidates doing the same thing, opening themselves up to the same speculation? Hmmmm... interesting that.

Romney has only released his registered lobbyist bundlers yet refuses to do so for his other bundlers. Funny that. Even after it states in this 'report' that his own party has called for him to do so. This casts suspicion on his other bundlers online donation practices that could very well not require a CVV either. If it turns out to be true... will we be seeing a thread from you stating that very same wrong doing? Or will the extreme right fall silent choosing to ignore it or explain it away?

Let's be fair. If we are going to throw one party under the bus for this, they all must be thrown under the bus and prosecuted in the same way regardless of party affiliation. If you are going to be full of self righteous indignation over Obama doing this, the same needs to be true for the republicans doing the same thing and so far that part of this issue has been ignored by most.

Same issue (possible donation fraud), different party (not dems but repubs)....where's the hue and cry of "Off with their heads!!" for them?? I'm waiting....... thus far..... I hear nothing.
edit on 8-10-2012 by MyMindIsMyOwn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn
 
Get them both.


Disqualify them both, I would be much happier with an old farmer running the country.


You betcha!!! And on that point I am in total agreement with you there Butcherguy...... well said.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MyMindIsMyOwn

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn
 
Get them both.


Disqualify them both, I would be much happier with an old farmer running the country.


You betcha!!! And on that point I am in total agreement with you there Butcherguy...... well said.


Or...rather than lopping off both their heads...which seems a tad excessive...perhaps we should simply have BOTH parties adhere to a mutual agreement by which BOTH parties implement and adhere to CVV security code protocol on their campaign websites.
Romney has implemented it from the beginning...and even Marco Rubio is catching on (see below).

So why won't Obama comply?...Maybe he will AFTER he reaches his goal to be the first BILLION DOLLAR PRESIDENT.


The GAI discovered that 47.3 percent of congressional donation sites do not use the CVV code, or the other widespread security practice of checking the address provided by donors with the address on their credit card billing account. It’s a problem with bipartisan dimensions, with one high-profile GOP example of unverified donations being the 2010 campaign website of Florida senator Marco Rubio. (Rubio’s website has since implemented CVV verification for campaign donations.)



Source:
www.humanevents.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Or...rather than lopping off both their heads...which seems a tad excessive...

Oh heavens. Sarcasm is not on the menu I see.


perhaps we should simply have BOTH parties adhere to a mutual agreement by which BOTH parties implement and adhere to CVV security code protocol on their campaign websites.


Agreed... and while we are at it, it should be required to disclose ALL bundlers (like Obama has and surprise surprise Romney has not) and the same agreement be signed by all bundlers to make sure this does not happen again in the future.

These should not only be policies set forth for Presidental campaigns but for all others as well because as we can see in this report, Senators and Representatives on both sides are just as guilty.

See what happens when we stop all the finger pointing?? Real solutions to problems start to emerge. Who'da thunk it, eh?



Romney has implemented it from the beginning


And good on him. However the fact remains that since he has not bothered to disclose all of his bundlers, we have no idea whatsoever that this does not go on in his camp either. Until he produces evidence that he's squeaky clean on this one I'm going with the skeptical tactic and say that it's a great possibility that fraud can be found in his camp also.


So why won't Obama comply?


Comply? Comply with what, this is not a policy nor is it a law. It is a choice by the campaign, a poor one I would agree, but a choice none the less. However, it could be for the same reason Romney refuses the call of his own party to release his full listing of bundlers to be scrutinized in the same manner..... because it would not be adventageous for either of them to do so at this time for various and sundry reasons.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
I just did a google search for 'obama.com website'.

It comes up, and without clicking on it, I previewed the home page. It is asking for donations and has a list of rules on it, saying that by donating, you agree that, among other things, are a citizen of the US.


Because you were redirected by a _javascript. Disable _javascript and see what happens.

This is what I get:


my.barackobama.com...
obama.com...
ssl...
www...
obama.com...


The page source code does not even have meta-tags...just the one redirect script that includes enabling Google Analytics to track page views, etc.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


EXACTLY. Thank you for pointing all of this also, as I have tried to do.

Evidently, from what someone else posted earlier in the thread, from investigating the internet wayback machine, this website was spoken for as early as 2007...that doesn't mean it was the same person owning it now and if it is a proxy ownership, there is no way to know that, that I know of.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by butcherguy
I just did a google search for 'obama.com website'.

It comes up, and without clicking on it, I previewed the home page. It is asking for donations and has a list of rules on it, saying that by donating, you agree that, among other things, are a citizen of the US.


Because you were redirected by a _javascript. Disable _javascript and see what happens.

This is what I get:


my.barackobama.com...
obama.com...
ssl...
www...
obama.com...


The page source code does not even have meta-tags...just the one redirect script that includes enabling Google Analytics to track page views, etc.
Ok, Thank you.

I see that now.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


AVS is NOT turned off on the official Obama donate page.

Read this.

Nobody will issue someone a merchant account that neither requires a CVV or does AVS. I KNOW this because I've had one.

You can't turn off AVS if you don't have CVV. The possibility for charge-backs and fraud is almost guaranteed in that scenario.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
The thing about the AVS...which is NOT turned off...is that the Obama campaign truly would be able to provide an address for all donations made on line.

There's no way around that fact...even if they don't have the records, the company who supplies them with the ability to take online payments DOES have it, for sure. If questions came up, they'd be asked to surrender them...of course, then the accusation would be that they doctored the records in order to save Obama's no-kind-of-president butt, I am sure.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Is this the 'huge, groundbreaking' news that was supposed to be released today?



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 


Yes, more chicken little shenanigans that have Andrew Breitbart smirking from the beyond.
2



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   


Let's be fair. If we are going to throw one party under the bus for this, they all must be thrown under the bus and prosecuted in the same way regardless of party affiliation.
reply to post by MyMindIsMyOwn
 

Truer words were never said. Of course, since they both do it, and both know it, nothing will happen, since each side thinks that they are benefiting more than the other. Both parties are like gamblers that cannot stop because they truly believe that their next bet will win back all the money that they lost. Sad, sad, sad. Our two-party (one-party) system is a complete sham, but has become the latest addiction, and they can't quit.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
And I find this funny. Co founder of Government Accountability Institute that released this report that Breitbart.com got to break the news on.

g-a-i.org...



Board of Directors Stephen K. Bannon • Executive Chairman and Co-Founder of the Government Accountability Institute •Mr. Bannon is a former Surface Warfare Officer who served aboard the destroyer U.S.S. Paul F. Foster (DD964) in the Pacific Fleet. In addition, Mr. Bannon was a Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations. Mr. Bannon is a former Goldman Sachs investment banker in their Mergers & Acquisitions Department. He has been a financier/entrepreneur in the entertainment and media industry for 25 years. He is currently the Executive Chairman of Breitbart News LLC the parent company of Breitbart.com.


This is the same guy.

thevictorysessions.com...




Session host: Stephen K. Bannon | Session guest: James O'Keefe

James O’Keefe Joins this Sunday’s Victory Sessions with Host Stephen K. Bannon KABC 5-7PM PT Listen Live!

James O’Keefe, 26, is an investigative journalist and filmmaker. He is president of Project Veritas, a non-profit organization dedicated to training video muckrakers nationwide. James’ investigations expose corruption and malfeasance in major taxpayer-funded institutions, including ACORN, Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Census Bureau, and elected officials. His most recent expose featured the New Jersey teachers union and was hailed by N.J. Governor Chris Christie as “enlightening and enraging.”

James is most well-known for his 2009 ACORN investigation, which exposed systematic corruption in multiple offices, such as the facilitation of child prostitution, human trafficking and tax evasion. The U.S. House and Senate promptly voted to defund ACORN and the U.S. Census cut ties with the group. The organization was ultimately forced to disband.


Yes James O'Keefe the guy who became a felon trying to tap the phones of Democrats. The one who gave out water bongs to Occupy Protesters while he was on probation in another state for his felony.


This is also the same guy.


edit on 8-10-2012 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 




Wingnuts get duped by breitbart.com again. When will they learn? Maybe they like being lied to?



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


Been to brietbart and saw the info. I have never seen so many people make excuses for Obama. When will it stop........



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Well done, Sir. Great find and thank you for digging that connection up.
I suppose we can now see just what fair and balanced 'investigative reports' we can look forward to from the GAI from here on out. Like Breitbart before it, the GAI willl now go into the round file and will garner no more attention from me when used as a source of information than the Enquirer does at the supermarket check out.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



Disqualify them both, I would be much happier with an old farmer running the country.


But that poor old farmer would probably be just miserable!







top topics
 
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join