No wonder he rejected public funding

[mikenold]

Dave338:

[dave338]

Another picture?

[mesue]

Another picture?

Is that your myspace profile pic?

[dave338]

Is that your myspace profile pic?

Good one. Never saw it coming.

[mesue]

Good one. Never saw it coming.

anyway, back to the OP

Barack Obama agreed with John McCain to accept public funding...That is until he saw the tricks he could play.

What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?

All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.

The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous “gift” cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax.

He sure likes other peoples money!

Reference:
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_illegal_donations/2008/10/21/142761.html?s=al&promo_code=6DD6-1

[dave338]

anyway, back to the OP

The Obama campaign refused Newsmax's requests to respond, apparently. The article also doesn't say anything except that the website accepted the donations - not that they actually made it into campaign coffers or weren't returned or outright denied at a second vetting point.

This article mentions refunds to fake names (and also was able to get Obama's camp to comment):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4504955.shtml

And this nytimes piece notes that it's a problem with BOTH campaigns, with the number of such 'fictitious donations' matching with the overall fundraising of the two campaigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us...donate.html?hp

[mikenold]

The Obama campaign refused Newsmax's requests to respond, apparently. The article also doesn't say anything except that the website accepted the donations - not that they actually made it into campaign coffers or weren't returned or outright denied at a second vetting point.

This article mentions refunds to fake names (and also was able to get Obama's camp to comment):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4504955.shtml

And this nytimes piece notes that it's a problem with BOTH campaigns, with the number of such 'fictitious donations' matching with the overall fundraising of the two campaigns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us...donate.html?hp

Obama has refused more than just the requests of Newsmax. No news organization, or anyone else for that matter, has been given any of these papers or information (Fake names of donors was not the only information). Instead of admitting when something might be wrong with Obama, it is always easier to point to something else OR someone else to deflect the attention. This is a prime liberal tactic.

[dave338]

I pointed out that newsmax didn't have any rebuttal from the Obama camp, that Obama refunded the money, and that McCain's camp has the same problems. I didn't point to 'something else' - just another report on the same story.

Also - speaking of taking other people's money, how do you like your copy of XP?

[mikenold]

I pointed out that newsmax didn't have any rebuttal from the Obama camp, that Obama refunded the money, and that McCain's camp has the same problems. I didn't point to 'something else' - just another report on the same story.

Also - speaking of taking other people's money, how do you like your copy of XP?

How do I like my copy of XP? What is that supposed to mean?

[dave338]

How do I like my copy of XP? What is that supposed to mean?

It means did you pay for it with your own money or someone else's? A republican committee's, for example?

[mikenold]

It means did you pay for it with your own money or someone else's? A republican committee's, for example?

What would make you say that somehow the Republican Party purchased anything for me, or even worse, insinuate that I would steal money from the republican committee? And put this in writing on a public forum? I take exception to you accusation. Would you try to make people believe that I am anything less than upright in my dealings with the Republican Committee? Would you besmirch my good name in a public forum? You should apologize publicly for your insinuation lest you open yourself up for a Libel lawsuit. I am not a cheat nor a scofflaw and take it very personally to be accused as one.

[dave338]

What would make you say that somehow the Republican Party purchased anything for me, or even worse, insinuate that I would steal money from the republican committee? I take exception to you accusation. You should apologize for your insinuation lest you open yourself up for a Libel lawsuit. I am not a cheat nor a scofflaw.

I insinuated nothing - I asked a question. Google your name + xp and explain what you find. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and will apologize.

[mikenold]

I insinuated nothing - I asked a question. Google your name + xp and explain what you find. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and will apologize.

You are wrong! Period. I don't know what you might be googling, nor do I care. I do not have to explain myself to you. You are the one that is accusing me of purchasing software with someone else's money. This is a libelous accusation. It also disturbs me that you would be googling anything with my name involved. Are you also stalking me?

[dave338]

As promised, I apologize to mikenold for a bad assumption on my part.

[mikenold]

As promised, I apologize to mikenold for a bad assumption on my part.

Apology accepted. I give credit where credit is due. It is good to clear the air knowing the truth be told.