Today's right-wing Obama-is-a-foreigner thing is the startling revelation that, theoretically, Barack Obama could be accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals . Short version: Barack Obama does not own the Obama.com domain name. Some (American) dude in China does. It autoforwards to a donation page on BarackObama.com, which Barack Obama owns. Foreigners can access Obama.com through nefarious means such as web browsers, which probably means that all of Obama's money is raised from his half-siblings in Kenya and Indonesia.
No offense to you, but I would very much doubt that. Based on a limited amount of observation from a safe distance, I would say many of them are past masters at processing donations in all their many forms.
The Obama campaign has two donation pages - one for folks in the US of A and another for Americans living overseas.
Of course, if the campaign didn't accept contributions from citizens in other lands, the right wing nutz would whine "OBAMA HATES THE MILITARY."
With Presidential campaigns costing over a billion dollars candidates will have to start asking for donations from Saudi Arabia, Germany, and other prosperous outfits.
<i>I do not know what processes the Obama campaign employs to weed these out. It actually appeared, based on the way it processed for several days, that the bank stopped it, not that Barack Obama stopped it.</i>
You&#039;d know damn well, right quick, if the bank had stopped the charge. There&#039;d be absolutely no element of doubt. Because the bank would be doing a little NFL celebration dance like a safety who&#039;d just batted down a pass attempt that was never going to be within 10 yards of its intended receiver or any other offensive player. You see, when the bank stops transactions they believe are fraud, they <em>really really really</em> want the customer to know how <em>fucking awesome</em> they are for not facilitating some pimply faced douchebag with a botnet in stealing your money. They want you to jump in your car, drive to their headquarters in South Dakota or Delaware, and high five everyone in the office personally (shouldn&#039;t take long, those offices are just a front), and they&#039;re likely to phone you up and tell you this.
So, if the transaction just vanished without the bank saying anything, it&#039;s a 100% slam dunk certainty that the vendor (in this case, OFA) withdrew the charge.
Yeah, you didn&#039;t hear it from me, I was never here, but, I have direct knowledge that it&#039;s not true that &quot;no credit card info is kept online&quot;.
Actually, you did hear it from me: I have an Amazon account that keeps my credit card info online. A bunch of other store accounts too.
Encrypted just means that you have to break into the web server to steal the decryption code, which also just happens to be what your preferred method of attack against the data store would have been anyway on account of it being a publicly advertised server with access to said data store; don&#039;t put too much faith in it is my advice.
Now, credit card info <em>is</em> supposed to have an aging policy applied to it, and you&#039;re <em>not</em> supposed to store the CVV, but even that latter policy is not correctly applied by all the websites I have used cards with, and given that the former is slightly hard to implement and not hugely easy to verify, I&#039;d also guarantee that many, many sites out there don&#039;t bother.
So, can we just make Mitt president of the other one?
Or went to England, and Israel, on fundraising trips. I bet that would really piss him off.
The bullshit is just being recycled - like a 2007 video that was discussed in, oh, 2007?
Reminds me of when the late, great Spy Magazine sent celebs checks for twenty-five cents. Donald Chump cashed his.
His blog does have a Disqus comment section, and the Mod is a major dick. Quelle surprise.
&quot;Factzguy&quot; commented as well. The jerk &quot;Mod&quot; has probably removed some of my comments by now...
2.0: Banned. Fuck &#039;em if they can&#039;t take a joke.
3.0: Factzguy wrote:
Bill S.: What are you afraid of? A contrary opinion?
Bill S wrote, in response to Factzguy:
Bite me, ex commenter.
How can one argue with an intellectual gladiator like that?
No offense to you, but I would very much doubt that. Based on a limited amount of observation from a safe distance, I would say many of them are past masters at processing donations in all their many forms.
The Obama campaign has two donation pages - one for folks in the US of A and another for Americans living overseas.
Of course, if the campaign didn&#039;t accept contributions from citizens in other lands, the right wing nutz would whine &quot;OBAMA HATES THE MILITARY.&quot;
So he was half-way elected, twice. That counts, right?
With Presidential campaigns costing over a billion dollars candidates will have to start asking for donations from Saudi Arabia, Germany, and other prosperous outfits.
<i>I do not know what processes the Obama campaign employs to weed these out. It actually appeared, based on the way it processed for several days, that the bank stopped it, not that Barack Obama stopped it.</i>
YOU DIDN&#039;T STOP THIS!
Well, he&#039;s tricky. And dark-hued.
You&#039;d know damn well, right quick, if the bank had stopped the charge. There&#039;d be absolutely no element of doubt. Because the bank would be doing a little NFL celebration dance like a safety who&#039;d just batted down a pass attempt that was never going to be within 10 yards of its intended receiver or any other offensive player. You see, when the bank stops transactions they believe are fraud, they <em>really really really</em> want the customer to know how <em>fucking awesome</em> they are for not facilitating some pimply faced douchebag with a botnet in stealing your money. They want you to jump in your car, drive to their headquarters in South Dakota or Delaware, and high five everyone in the office personally (shouldn&#039;t take long, those offices are just a front), and they&#039;re likely to phone you up and tell you this.
So, if the transaction just vanished without the bank saying anything, it&#039;s a 100% slam dunk certainty that the vendor (in this case, OFA) withdrew the charge.
Yeah, you didn&#039;t hear it from me, I was never here, but, I have direct knowledge that it&#039;s not true that &quot;no credit card info is kept online&quot;.
Actually, you did hear it from me: I have an Amazon account that keeps my credit card info online. A bunch of other store accounts too.
Encrypted just means that you have to break into the web server to steal the decryption code, which also just happens to be what your preferred method of attack against the data store would have been anyway on account of it being a publicly advertised server with access to said data store; don&#039;t put too much faith in it is my advice.
Now, credit card info <em>is</em> supposed to have an aging policy applied to it, and you&#039;re <em>not</em> supposed to store the CVV, but even that latter policy is not correctly applied by all the websites I have used cards with, and given that the former is slightly hard to implement and not hugely easy to verify, I&#039;d also guarantee that many, many sites out there don&#039;t bother.
It was over the internet, doesn&#039;t that automatically make it Federal jurisdiction?
Why does he need money for beer when he has a brewery in his house?