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

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
Here we see Obama himself talking about ...............


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."


"Obama 2010 SOTU: "Foreign Entities" Should Not Bankroll American Elections"


They Always seem to say one thing and then do the opposite !

due facce at its' best !!



at no point does the report state that Obama is getting huge amounts of money from foreigners... that's just one of Breitbart's lies...




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Breitbart? You know from the get go it's meaningless.

And WHENEVER anyone types "bombshell" be assured it's not.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by longlostbrother
 

It's fine that you disagree with my thread...but please refrain from personal insults.



It's more factual to say that you are a liar than that Robert Roche owns Obama.com.

You have been busted, twice now, knowingly lying. That makes you a liar.

I don't think you're evil or anything, just a political propagandist.

You admit the OP is inaccurate. Breitbart stories are mostly propaganda. Lying about what you posted, to seem more reasonable is, IMO disgusting behaviour. Just own your propaganda. don't pretend to be posting truth, after it's been shown to be a lie.

Have a bit of decency.

edit on 9-10-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



Hello longlostbrother,
I can't help but notice that you use the British spelling of the word behavior (behaviour). This lets me know that it is highly unlikely that you are American. I just thought that was interesting, especially given the topic of this thread. Have a lovely day and know that I harbour no ill will towards you mate.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Great job people, you keep stirring it up, and I will keep track of the ones responding, we are earning our money today.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


Dear presumptuous person,

I am a US expat.

I have lived abroad for several years and have picked up some British spellings.

I am also a US citizen. And a voter.

Don't make assumptions.
edit on 9-10-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-10-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


As if truth has a nationality.
I think assuming your nationality in attempted defense of breitbart.com managed to surpass the idiocy of the OP.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
More "evidence" ......


With a new Government Accountability Institute (GAI) report highlighting the threat of foreign online campaign donations making a buzz throughout the Beltway, Breitbart News has discovered blog entries on President Obama’s official website that highlight the pervasiveness of the problem.

Just last week, a Canadian woman writing on President Obama’s official campaign website claims she made a campaign donation to the Obama campaign during the last election and that she intends to do so this time as well—a clear violation of U.S. election laws.......................

{see the article for screenshots}

Obama Supporter Brags About Illegal Foreign Donations on President's Own Website


I think a full and complete audit is called for !!




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
More "evidence" ......


With a new Government Accountability Institute (GAI) report highlighting the threat of foreign online campaign donations making a buzz throughout the Beltway, Breitbart News has discovered blog entries on President Obama’s official website that highlight the pervasiveness of the problem.

Just last week, a Canadian woman writing on President Obama’s official campaign website claims she made a campaign donation to the Obama campaign during the last election and that she intends to do so this time as well—a clear violation of U.S. election laws.......................

{see the article for screenshots}

Obama Supporter Brags About Illegal Foreign Donations on President's Own Website


I think a full and complete audit is called for !!



You're sure a political hack.

The breitbart article even suggest that the blog was written by a Romney supporter.


Are these postings the duplicitous work of Romney supporters pretending to be Obama backers?


I wouldn't be surprised if it was YOU that posted that blog on the Obama site. Anyone can.

An anonymous blog post, with no outside confirmation is NOT evidence. You pretending it is, to score political points is however evidence of your ridiculous levels of bias and inability to be even-handed.

But sure, anyone that's spent more than 10 minutes in the political threads on ATS knows which side you work for.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

I agree that we need a full audit of both candidates' website contributions.
This country is in desperate need of campaign reform.
The sad thing is that this blatant foreign donor loophole could be closed with just one simple 'click' back in Chicago.

Seriously...What is actually stopping the Obama campaign from adding the same credit card CVV security code to their donor form, (that Romney has)...and they (Obama campaign) already have in place on their Obama mug and tee shirt purchase credit card form?

A direct and simple question to Obama supporters (no spin, just a direct answer please):
Why do they (Obama campaign) place a CVV security code on ONE form...and not THE OTHER?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT
OMG!...Just found this:


A wireless company profiting from the so-called “Obama phone” giveaway program is run by a prominent Democratic donor whose wife has raised more than $1.5 million for the president since 2007.



One of the major providers of the free cell phones—3.8 million subscribers as of late 2011—is Miami-based TracFone Wireless, a company whose president and CEO, Frederick “F.J.” Pollak, has donated at least $156,500 to Democratic candidates and committees this cycle, including at least $50,000 to the Obama campaign. Pollak’s wife, Abigail, is a campaign bundler for Obama who has raised more than $632,000 for the president this cycle, and more than $1.5 million since 2007. She has personally contributed more than $200,000 to Democratic candidates and committees since 2008. The Pollaks hosted Obama at their Miami Beach home in June for a $40,000-per-plate fundraising dinner, and hosted a similar event with Michelle Obama in July 2008. The couple personally donated a combined $66,200 to Obama’s reelection effort that year. Visitor logs indicate that Frederick and Abigail Pollak have visited the White House seven times. In 2009, the president appointed Abigail to serve on the “Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino.”



OMG The "Obama" phone program has been around since Reagan's administration... OMG!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by whisperindave
reply to post by IAMTAT
 
Uhm, perhaps you didn't know this, the Chinese OWN most of our debt and therefore, OWN us. Not only that but it is usually impossible to know who owns what web facility or network. For instance Fox News second biggest investor is a Muslim Business man, from Saudi Arabia. So my question is: How is this a bombshell? Or even news? We should not go see a movie because the Chinese govt. owns the film the movie was processed on?

edit on 8-10-2012 by whisperindave because: Missed a word.


Perhaps you didn't know this but only 1.132 trillion of the 16 trillion in total debt is owned by the Chinese. I really would not call that most of our debt.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DoubleDNH
 

OMG...you're stating the obvious! OMG!

Funny...It was never called The Reagan Phone, The Clinton Phone...or The Bush Phone.
Only Obama decided to brand this program as HIS free phone give-a-way.

obamaphone.net...



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by DoubleDNH
 

OMG...you're stating the obvious! OMG!

Funny...It was never called The Reagan Phone, The Clinton Phone...or The Bush Phone.
Only Obama decided to brand this program as HIS free phone give-a-way.

obamaphone.net...


Interesting that the link you provided is not a .gov website. I don't believe that Obama is branding this as "The Obama Phone". I do, however, believe that someone is attempting to make it look that way.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Just a casual observation, but much has been said to discredit the source versus the allegation...that sorta sounds like not playing the ball versus going for the player.

Now it could be that the info is total crap. But don't we want the press to ask those tough questions so the people have a chance to consider the answer? While Bretbart is going to focus on Obama, there is the question of both sides doing it in Congress that is being dismissed in the rush to discredit the source.

The fact that there is a pause to question this information should be all the proof we need that some serious strict reforms are needed for campaign donations. Personally I would like to see a single contribution point that equally distributes to all registered candidates so campaign spending isn't unbalanced in favor to the best beggar.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


About the CVV code question you asked...I'm only giving my opinion since I do not work for the Obama Campaign....but which would be more important in regards to the issue of foreign donations being illegal?

A code that verifies that you have the card physically present with you when donating?
Or a verification system that makes sure that the billing address given by the card holder matches the one on file with the credit card company?

Something to keep in mind here is that the CVV code CAN NOT be saved by the merchant, which is in this case the Obama Campaign...but a record of the address of the donor can be...and is also on file with the merchant account provider as well as the card company issuing the card.

So IF you could choose to require a confidential non-retainable code preventing unauthorized use of a credit card OR a documented record (in three places not affiliated beyond the merchant account activities) of the donor's billing address...in relation to accepting presidential campaign donations...which would be the wiser choice?

The CVV in no way affirms or declares the location of the card holder...only the location of the card!
The AVS declares and affirms the billing address of the card holder.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


This post and the news story on which it was based are in turn based on a poor translation via google translate of some Norwegian blogger:

Obama campaign fund scandal based on innacurate translation

So this is the OP shows the level of poor fact finding in coming up with yet another false, anti-Obama story. PATHETIC!!! Get your facts straight, conservative trogladytes, before you open your pie-holes again.

And let's be clear, I'm no big defender of Obama and have a lot of problems with him; however, he is still a bit more presidential material than Romney.

The more lame-brain stories I hear about Obama, the more sure I am that all the Obama hating has a racial component to it. To wit: note all the GOP politiicans and campaigners who have been caught sending e-mail with racist jokes about Obama, all the racist campaign signs and rhetoric coming out at Teabagger rallies and the vicious vitriol coming out of some GOP politicians' mouths, including nasty comments about Obama's dead grandmother.

Progressives/liberals/Democrats hated Bush II plenty, but they didn't make nasty comments about his grandmother. Although his grand daddy, who did consort with the Nazis, was fair game, of course.

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



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 




The GAI report’s authors apparently relied on Google Translator for their translation of that final line. ThinkProgress confirmed with three Norwegian speakers, including a University of North Dakota professor of Norwegian language, that the quote actually means quite the opposite.

Gaupefot’s comment claims a failed 2004 attempt to donate to John Kerry’s campaign. The correct translation of the last line is, essentially, “If I actually could have given money to Obama, I would have done it.”


thinkprogress.org... c

bu-bu-bu I read a blog written by the guy who wrote the report saying the report WAS true....

When will people stop believing the right-wing?

Oh right, I forgot, there's a never ending supply of idiots.... and before you get mad at me, I'm simply paraphrasing Rick Santorum... send him the nasty messages.



You said it Rick.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Spot on... and guess who doesn't use AVS - -Mitt Romney.

www.mittromney.com...

You don't think THAT had anything to do with the fact that the conservative report blasts Obama over CVV and only glosses over the fact that NEITHER candidate uses AVS...?

Nah... sure that's just another in a long list of accidents the right-wing author made.

Funny how all of those tend to help the Romney campaign. What a coincidence.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


I suspected as much.
Thanks for the info...you've provided a lot of factual details to this discussion in two threads.


I say, then, bring on the audits of both candidate's campaign funding!



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Honestly - that should be done AFTER the election, because at this point the two sides are too infantile to do it seriously; it'd just be a political charade.

If it's done after the election and the winner is seen to have grossly benefited in a way that was decisive, then let congress investigate and let law be made to stop it from happening again; but at this point, as this political propaganda... sorry, conservative "report," shows all too clearly, the issue is not able to be discussed rationally.

One this is for sure: Most of the coverage of this report is non-factual, especially the coverage from the right-wing media. They, much more than than anyone else, are playing politics with this issue, one they claim is very important.





top topics
 
31
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join