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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (677796)	10/7/2012 7:01:07 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 1576336

no--the liar was kerryketchup.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (677796)	10/8/2012 10:46:30 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576336

Obama Campaign Rakes In Millions In Illegal Foreign Cash Corruption: A new study suggests that President Obama's campaign systematically pursued foreign contributions to fuel his run for the presidency, a violation of law. Is America's democracy now for sale to the highest bidder? The Government Accountability Institute, which is headed by Stanford University Professor Peter Schweizer, used sophisticated Internet investigative tools — including something called "spidering" software — to determine how the web is being used to raise political funds. What it found should be of concern, since it suggests that many in Congress and, more importantly, the Obama campaign have systematically exploited loopholes in the law to raise millions of dollars overseas — a big chunk of it in the People's Republic of China. How is this done? Through the mundane use of what's called in the credit-card world the Card Verification Value, or CVV. It's the three-digit number on the back of a card that helps positively identify that the person using the card has it in his or her possession. It's a key anti-fraud weapon, used by nearly all legitimate e-commerce businesses and charities. Obama's campaign doesn't use it. Mitt Romney's does. So why the particular concern over Obama? As the report notes, letting a flood of money into the political system with no verification of its source is an invitation to fraud — especially from overseas. The report adds, "the Internet's ability to disintermediate campaign contributions on a mass scale, as well as outmoded and lax Federal Election Commission rules, make U.S. elections vulnerable to foreign influence." Is Obama exploiting this? Under federal election law, contributions from foreign sources are prohibited. But the law also doesn't require a campaign to disclose the source of contributions less than $200, and it doesn't even have to keep records for those giving less than $50. In September, for instance, Obama's campaign announced it had raised $181 million. But if you're looking for transparency, you won't find it: Just 2% of that amount — $3.6 million — has to be reported to the FEC. Of special concern are funds flowing into the Obama campaign from foreign sources, especially China. In 2008, Robert Roche, a U.S. businessman based in Shanghai with extensive commercial ties to the Chinese government, bought the website Obama.com. Roche, a big-time bundler for Obama, was given a place of honor at the head table with Obama and first lady Michelle Obama at a 2011 state dinner for Chinese President Hu Jintao. Nothing illegal about that. It's not clear Roche still even owns Obama.com. But this year, suspiciously, the site began sending visitors to the Obama campaign's donation page on the Web. Some 68% of Obama.com's visitors are foreign. Similarly, the Obama re-election campaign itself seems to be encouraging illegal foreign contributions. Its social media website, my.barackobama.com, gets about 20% of its visitors from foreign locations. Anyone who uses the website, says the GAI, "immediately begins receiving solicitations for donations." However, "At no point ... is a visitor asked whether he or she can legally donate to a U.S. election," it notes. The revelation is troubling, since China's government has a history of trying to manipulate U.S. politicians, especially — but not exclusively — Democrats. In 1996, Chinese agent Johnny Chung gave almost $100,000 to American politicians, much of it from powerful members of China's military. Chung reportedly gave $300,000 to President Clinton's campaign. The Justice Department in 1997 launched two investigations of reported attempts of high-level Chinese officials to "buy influence" with U.S. politicians, especially the Democratic National Committee. With the Internet, China seems to have found a road to political clout bigger than an eight-lane highway. Under the current president, the U.S. has largely ceded control of the Western Pacific to China and let that nation's massive military buildup go unchallenged. Meanwhile, until recently, Obama soft-pedaled even the mildest criticisms of China's economic policies. But then, why bite the hand that feeds you?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (677796)	10/8/2012 10:48:12 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576336

The Obama Levee Breaks Election 2012: President Obama might think sagging polls are his biggest post-debate problem. But it's really people like Buzz Bissinger, Stacey Dash and Bill Maher showing it's now acceptable in polite society to attack The One. In an eye-opening piece Monday on the Daily Beast, "Friday Night Lights" author and lifelong Democrat Buzz Bissinger announced he was voting for Romney. The tipping point, he wrote, "was last week's debate in Denver," which showed Obama out of energy and out of ideas. Obama is "no longer the chosen one. He is just too cool for school in a country desperate for the infectiousness of rejuvenation." The day before, Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza wrote that Obama's debate performance "raised a bigger question: Is he overrated as a candidate?" Before the debate, Cillizza admits, such a question "would have been unimaginable." Also Sunday, black actress Stacey Dash decided to tell her quarter-million Twitter followers they should "Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future." And Bill Maher, once so enamored of Obama he wrote a $1 million check to his Super PAC, now wonders if Obama "took my million and spent it all on weed." For four years, such comments were entirely off-limits. It's not that Democrats, centrists or other thoughtful people didn't have legitimate gripes. They just couldn't air them without being labeled a racist, a hater or a traitor to the liberal cause. Now, suddenly, it's OK to say you're disappointed in Obama's leadership. It's OK to wonder if he's overrated. It's OK to blame him for the ongoing lousy economy and foreign policy fiascoes. And, after years avoiding Obama altogether, comedians are willing to make him the butt of jokes. For any other politician, this wouldn't mean much. But now that the massive dam protecting Obama from criticism all these years has cracked, the results could be catastrophic. Who knows? Maybe the mainstream press will even decide to cover Obama fairly. They might report how wages have declined the last four years, while food stamps and poverty climbed. Or tell them how Obama has driven the debt above the entire GDP. Or write about Obama's green energy fiascoes, Fast and Furious, and the burgeoning Benghazi scandal. Well, let's not get too carried away.