Identity Theft Credit Card Fraud for Obama?

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

There have been several articles out this week talking about what kind of person Obama would appoint to the Supreme Court. His words, even. So, that has been discovered, as you wished.

As to Wright or Ayers shaping Obama's policies on education or the economy...frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would even think there should be a connection there.

Have a look at the article on Politico about the people Obama would surround himself with. Good people. Why aren't we talking about those associations? Why aren't we talking about Volcker or Rubin or Buffet or a number of other people when we talk about Obama's economic policies? Instead we are talking about Rev Wright. Let's get real, already!

I will look at the Time and Politico articles.

Do you really believe that sitting in Wright's church for 20 years will have no effect on Obama's view of the US? I can't believe you would think that.

Surrounding yourself with good people is a start. But in the end who's calling the shots. Obama or Buffet? Did President Bush listen to his advisors when they told him something he didn't want to hear? My memory is those advisors ended up leaving his cabinet.

Here is an example:

A common thread among Ayers and Wright is social activism. Obama seems to have similar tendencies with his call for community service. How is all that going to come together?

[dude1394]

Easy to say what you "will" do versus defending what you've done.

Maybe some aren't willing to "wait and see what he does" once he gets in office.

[dude1394]

Continues to shock me that obama supporters can defend first his backtrack on campaign financing and then his blatant willingness to accept illegal contributions without batting an eye. The ends really do justify the means it seems.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../11/021949.php

Munro blows through the smoke thrown up by the Obama campaign to cover up the story. For example, commenting on Barack Obama's response to Charlie Gibson's question about identifying the contributors of small donations -- "Look, you know, 3.1 million donors would be a pretty hard thing for us to be able to process" -- Munro reports:

There are few technical obstacles to sorting and identifying small-scale donors. Obama's campaign is using two of the nation's largest financial companies to process online donations, according to a New York Times story in July. They are, according to the Times, American Express, which processes daily transactions by almost 90 million cardholders worldwide, and Bank of America, which processes 3 million credit card transactions every 16 minutes, according to its 2007 annual report [PDF].

However, a five-minute phone call to Bank of America's merchant-services department showed how a campaign could sort transactions to identify the credit cards used in donations. The campaign could download transaction data from the bank's Web site and transfer the file into a database, such as Excel, said the Bank of America employee. "Then highlight all your transactions and click your sort button," the employee said.

Munro also provides the apt comparison between the McCain and Obama campaigns on this score:

Obama's fundraising far outpaces that of previous campaigns. He raised $150 million -- including $100 million in online donations -- in September. McCain's campaign cannot raise additional money because it accepted $84 million in federal funds after the GOP convention. The campaign now directs would-be donors to other GOP-affiliated sites.

Obama's September take included money from many small donors, whose names have not been released. The McCain campaign Web site displays the names and home cities of all donors. The McCain database does show some fake names, such as "Jesus II," and hundreds of small-scale anonymous donors, although campaign officials say they accept online donations only from people who submit an address that matches the billing address for their credit card.

Munro provides a wealth of additional information in a story that should shame the likes of the Washington Post and the New York Times, which have barely dipped their toes into it. Check out Munro's story along with the Obama Shrugged site that is tracking developments in this important story.

[dude1394]

Obama's a piece of work allright. I guess you could say he really knows how to run a campaign.

http://obamashrugged.com/?p=179

While Obama insists that tracking and disclosing his donor database is too difficult, the respected National Journal demonstrates that this simply isn’t the case in a new article entitled, Common Web Tools Make Tracking Donors Doable.

According to Bank of America, one of the two banks processing Obama’s online donations:

A five-minute phone call to Bank of America’s merchant-services department showed how a campaign could sort transactions to identify the credit cards used in donations.

The campaign could download transaction data from the bank’s Web site and transfer the file into a database, such as Excel, said the Bank of America employee. “Then highlight all your transactions and click your sort button,” the employee said.

The implication is that the Obama campaign could use this reporting to discover those multiple donations conducted by individuals faking names and addresses.

In addition, it was discovered that the Obama campaign does in fact track the IP addresses of donors:

Software code on Obama’s online donations page indicates that the site recognizes the IP address of everyone who gives money. It can be viewed by selecting page source from the “view” menu on most Web browsers. The code for donate.barackobama.com includes an “ip_addr” field, which records the visitor’s IP address.

So we now know that the Obama campaign tracks IP addresses. Which, of course, begs the question on how foreign donations are getting through. And since the front-end AVS fraud filters are turned off why wouldn’t the Obama campaign use the IP information it already collects to help prevent inappropriate foreign donations? Isn’t this supposed to be the internet generations’s candidate and campaign?!

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Do you really believe that sitting in Wright's church for 20 years will have no effect on Obama's view of the US? I can't believe you would think that.

Well, let's think about that question, and think about what we do--and don't--know.

First, we should probably think about the entirety of the reasons one affiliates with a certain church. The political views of the pastor could well be a reason for one to affiliate with the church, but it could also be irrelevant. It could also be the case that a paritioner has reasons for staying affiliated with the church *despite* disagreeing with the pastor's political beliefs.

Now, we do know that Obama had reasons for affiliating with the church that had nothing to do with his approval (or disapproval) of Wright. The church was/is a very important part of the community he lived in, and his attendance there fostered important social and/or political networks.

What we don't know is whether Obama agreed with any political rhetoric he may have heard Wright spew. What Obama has said on the matter is that he does *not* agree with some of the things Wright said.

We should also consider the twenty-year attendance record and ask some questions. How many of Wright's sermons were political in nature? How many of them had nothing at all to do with politics and everything to do with religion/spirituality, over the course of twenty years? Do we know that?

How regularly did Obama attend? Do we know that? Assuming that not every one of Wright's sermons included political rhetoric, how many of Wright's political sermons did Obama attend? Do we know that?

What conversations, if any, did Obama have with Wright about Wright's politics? Do we know that? Could Obama have made an effort to soften Wright's views, or even persuade him otherwise?

I'm just saying...if it were up to any of us to prove the notion that Obama agrees with, or was shaped by, Wright's political views...we would have a tough time doing it with the evidence on hand.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Well, let's think about that question, and think about what we do--and don't--know.

First, we should probably think about the entirety of the reasons one affiliates with a certain church. The political views of the pastor could well be a reason for one to affiliate with the church, but it could also be irrelevant. It could also be the case that a paritioner has reasons for staying affiliated with the church *despite* disagreeing with the pastor's political beliefs.

Now, we do know that Obama had reasons for affiliating with the church that had nothing to do with his approval (or disapproval) of Wright. The church was/is a very important part of the community he lived in, and his attendance there fostered important social and/or political networks.

What we don't know is whether Obama agreed with any political rhetoric he may have heard Wright spew. What Obama has said on the matter is that he does *not* agree with some of the things Wright said.

We should also consider the twenty-year attendance record and ask some questions. How many of Wright's sermons were political in nature? How many of them had nothing at all to do with politics and everything to do with religion/spirituality, over the course of twenty years? Do we know that?

How regularly did Obama attend? Do we know that? Assuming that not every one of Wright's sermons included political rhetoric, how many of Wright's political sermons did Obama attend? Do we know that?

What conversations, if any, did Obama have with Wright about Wright's politics? Do we know that? Could Obama have made an effort to soften Wright's views, or even persuade him otherwise?

I'm just saying...if it were up to any of us to prove the notion that Obama agrees with, or was shaped by, Wright's political views...we would have a tough time doing it with the evidence on hand.

These are some great questions and in some ways they prove my point. Why isn't someone in the media trying to track down info like this? I think it's important.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

These are some great questions and in some ways they prove my point. Why isn't someone in the media trying to track down info like this? I think it's important.

Why isn't someone in the media trying to track down the info? I would guess that there is no record.

You and I disagree on whether it is important or not. I see it as trivial, in the context of how Obama would lead as president. There is neither evidence nor any reason to believe that Obama is a disciple of Wright. Obama has many, many other associations that are far more relevant.

[dude1394]

Who are the other 20year mentors of Obama?

[Mavdog]

who are the 20 year mentors of mccain?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who are the other 20year mentors of Obama?

Who is your "20year mentor"? You're a big boy, aren't you? You can think for yourself, can't you?

[dude1394]

Well I'm not sure for mccain...but I can pretty much gurantee it's not ex-terrorists or hate-mongers.

Well a couple of buds, my wife, guys who've worked for me and I've worked for. But I can't for the life of me think of an ex-terrorist or hate-monger that I can count among them.

[chumdawg]

You've probably lived a sheltered life.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well I'm not sure for mccain...but I can pretty much gurantee it's not ex-terrorists or hate-mongers.

we don't really know, do we?

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Why isn't someone in the media trying to track down the info? I would guess that there is no record.

You and I disagree on whether it is important or not. I see it as trivial, in the context of how Obama would lead as president. There is neither evidence nor any reason to believe that Obama is a disciple of Wright. Obama has many, many other associations that are far more relevant.

So when Obama says (or said, he won't say this anymore) Wright was his spiritual advisor and mentor that's trivial to you? What other person ever served as a mentor? The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. That doesn't mean Obama will definitely choose a Rev Wright as a mentor in the future, but it is a legitimate possibility. That's not an opinion but rather Psychology 101.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

So when Obama says (or said, he won't say this anymore) Wright was his spiritual advisor and mentor that's trivial to you? What other person ever served as a mentor? The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. That doesn't mean Obama will definitely choose a Rev Wright as a mentor in the future, but it is a legitimate possibility. That's not an opinion but rather Psychology 101.

I don't think Psych101 is going to get you very far here. We are way, way beyond that.

Obama's top advisors are David Axelrod and David Plouffe. They deal with him every...single...day. Compared to Axelrod and Plouffe, Wright is like his first-grade teacher.

This is so much a non-issue that it hardly deserves to be called a non-issue.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

we don't really know, do we?

No and I can't swear that you don't still beat your wife.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No and I can't swear that you don't still beat your wife.

That's what you've got? Seriously? That stuff is twenty years old, dude.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No and I can't swear that you don't still beat your wife.

ha ha ha. haven't heard that one in...well, maybe a few months.

the point is that this fishing expedition regarding obama has reached the point of absurdity. it is ridiculous to continue to protest that we do not know the man, know what he is made of, and what he intends to do as president should he be elected.

it is as open a book as...well, as open a book as mccain is.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't think Psych101 is going to get you very far here. We are way, way beyond that.

Obama's top advisors are David Axelrod and David Plouffe. They deal with him every...single...day. Compared to Axelrod and Plouffe, Wright is like his first-grade teacher.

This is so much a non-issue that it hardly deserves to be called a non-issue.

I hope you are right.

Obama is a smart guy. There is no way he would surround himself with extremists while he is running for the presidency. But, again, I hope you are right. I don't know much about Axelrod and Plouffe. Aren't they political consultants with long ties to just about every Dem candidate that ever ran for president?

You're amazing confidence that you know Barack Obama is interesting. I don't think anyone knows the guy.. except for Michelle.. maybe. Maybe Michelle, Chumdawg, and Mavdog.

What do you think about Obama's time as editor of the Harvard Law Review. Is it unusual for the editor to have never published in his own journal? Maybe its a common thing, I don't know. But with most venues, editors like to shape their publication with their own words.

[chumdawg]

I think Obama's tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review is actually strong proof positive of his administrative skills, and I'm glad you brought it up. He was under a great deal of pressure from the blacks to shape his administration of the HLR with a progressive tilt. He denied that, though. Rather, he collected viewpoints from as many disparate angles as reached him. It was a terrific peek into the kind of president that he would be, and again, thank you for mentioning it. It's the kind of thing that more people should know about.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

I hope you are right.

Obama is a smart guy. There is no way he would surround himself with extremists while he is running for the presidency. But, again, I hope you are right. I don't know much about Axelrod and Plouffe. Aren't they political consultants with long ties to just about every Dem candidate that ever ran for president?

no, axelrod worked on the edwards campaign in 2004, but this is the first presidential camaign he has run.

You're amazing confidence that you know Barack Obama is interesting. I don't think anyone knows the guy.. except for Michelle.. maybe. Maybe Michelle, Chumdawg, and Mavdog.

after 2 years of the campaign it's pretty easy to see who the candidates are, what they are made of imo.

What do you think about Obama's time as editor of the Harvard Law Review. Is it unusual for the editor to have never published in his own journal? Maybe its a common thing, I don't know. But with most venues, editors like to shape their publication with their own words.

no, not unusual at all for him to not author a piece. editors edit. writers write...