Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (256847)	7/5/2008 4:50:20 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 794009

June 29 - somehow this did not gain traction. BO may redefine teflon!

To: Carolyn who wrote (256847)	7/5/2008 4:59:52 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 794009

That article may be a fake, it's not on her NYTimes listing. She's already written a column for June 29th nytimes.com

To: Carolyn who wrote (256847)	7/5/2008 5:00:02 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794009

Holy cow! Obama's funding is mostly from overseas countries hostile to the US and is probably illegal but no one cares??? Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user. While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia. Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges. It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws. It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway. This is a shocking revelation.

To: Carolyn who wrote (256847)	7/5/2008 5:24:01 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794009

Where did you get this "Dowd" column, Carolyn?

To: Carolyn who wrote (256847)	7/5/2008 7:02:33 PM
From: Whitebeard	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794009

Damn...if true, it should blow the lid off things...The Chicoms and the Arabs are trying to buy the election for Obama? And this comes from Dowd? I find the first easy to believe, though not how they expected to hide it, but that the revelation comes from Dowd blows my mind? In the NYT? This should create a firestorm, shouldn't it? Put that together with the talk of his being a closet Muslim....and his campaign decided to ignore it (hide it).... Gees, talk about campaign fodder...