BLOG VIEW  |  HEADLINE VIEW
SUBMIT NEWS  |  RSS FEED  |  SEARCH

The New Yorker: Unfunny Since 1925

MONDAY JULY 14 2008 12:00 PM

Submitted by crispy. Edited By crispy.

TAGS: The New Yorker, Obama, terrorist, Muslim

The New Yorker magazine is probably best known for its cartoons which never seem to make any sense and are rarely funny ... kind of like TheCoolerKing*.

Their latest cover, in an attempt for humor or satire or relevance or attention, portrays Barack and Michelle Obama in an illustration featuring "fantastical images" that left the Obama camp fantastically offended.



The image, drawn by Barry Blitt and featured on the front cover of this week's New Yorker, shows Mr Obama wearing traditional Muslim dress, while his wife, Michelle, is dressed in combat trousers and carrying a machine-gun.

The couple are shown standing in the Oval Office, greeting one another with a "fist bump", with an American flag burning in the fireplace, and a portrait of Osama Bin Laden on the wall.


I'm sure it seemed like a great idea at the time, but in today's politically correct society they had to have expected the fallout.

The New Yorker said the cover, called "The Politics of Fear", was a critique of unfounded allegations that have tried to portray Mr Obama, a Christian, as a closet radical Muslim.

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover," the statement said.

The portrayal of the Obamas "fist-bumping" one another was a reference to a campaign rally in St Paul, Minnesota, back in June, at which the couple were seen to "fist-bump", an action described by one Fox News commentator as a "terrorist fist-jab".

[...]

But Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the cartoon, saying: ""The New Yorker may think... that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create, but most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."


Of course, it's obviously satirical to anyone with a brain in their head, but remember that we're talking about America here ... a country whose current president wouldn't know satire from a ham sandwich.

How many people are going to totally miss the true point of the cartoon and only see what is portrayed within? For how many people (West Virginia, I'm looking at you!) is this going to be a confirmation of all of their fears rather that an attempt to mock them?

Most importantly, how many copies above current circulation is this thing going to sell before the inevitable apology and removal?

Get it fresh from the newsstands, folks, and stash it away for a couple of years when it'll probably fetch a pretty penny on eBay.


*That was crispy's attempt at satire.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 8

Next

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

JUL 14, 2008 04:06 PM

My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.


ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
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 fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi 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.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.



I sent an email to all the people on the forwarding list explaining why they were idiots.

But, remember, that New Yorker cover won't continue the lie.....

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

JUL 14, 2008 04:12 PM

Your dad knows that's a hoax, right?

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

JUL 14, 2008 04:16 PM

BlastProcessing said:
Your dad knows that's a hoax, right?



No. He believes this shit. A lot of his friends do too, based on the emails I'm reading. They can't believe the MSM isn't breaking the story big.

This is why people are concerned about the cover. They provided a cover, someone writes a false story attached and off it goes. Not hard to figure out.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

JUL 14, 2008 04:21 PM

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
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 fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi 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.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.



I sent an email to all the people on the forwarding list explaining why they were idiots.

But, remember, that New Yorker cover won't continue the lie.....



Just kinda wondering, if you're not voting for Obama, why do you give a shit about how the media is portraying him?

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

JUL 14, 2008 04:23 PM

FearTheReaper said:

BlastProcessing said:
Your dad knows that's a hoax, right?



No. He believes this shit. A lot of his friends do too, based on the emails I'm reading. They can't believe the MSM isn't breaking the story big.

This is why people are concerned about the cover. They provided a cover, someone writes a false story attached and off it goes. Not hard to figure out.


So...Maureen Dowd writes a weekly column and asomeone writes a false stoy attached. And off it goes. People are going to say what they want. Regardless of whether or not the New Yorker put out that cover. Your dad sending out that E-mail is proof of that.

Hooraydiation

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA
October 2005

JUL 14, 2008 04:25 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

Just kinda wondering, if you're not voting for Obama, why do you give a shit about how the media is portraying him?



He gets paid to give a shit (or at least pretend to), for one thing.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

JUL 14, 2008 04:33 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
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 fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi 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.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.



I sent an email to all the people on the forwarding list explaining why they were idiots.

But, remember, that New Yorker cover won't continue the lie.....



Just kinda wondering, if you're not voting for Obama, why do you give a shit about how the media is portraying him?



Because right is right and wrong is wrong. Weird, huh?

But thanks for reminding me why I don't post here anymore.

See ya.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

JUL 14, 2008 04:38 PM

FearTheReaper said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
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 fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi 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.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.



I sent an email to all the people on the forwarding list explaining why they were idiots.

But, remember, that New Yorker cover won't continue the lie.....



Just kinda wondering, if you're not voting for Obama, why do you give a shit about how the media is portraying him?



Because right is right and wrong is wrong. Weird, huh?

But thanks for reminding me why I don't post here anymore.

See ya.



Because someone asked you a simple question?

What a fucking crybaby.

ckdexterhaven

ckdexterhaven

Redding, CA
December 2005

JUL 14, 2008 04:50 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
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 fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi 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.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.



I sent an email to all the people on the forwarding list explaining why they were idiots.

But, remember, that New Yorker cover won't continue the lie.....



Just kinda wondering, if you're not voting for Obama, why do you give a shit about how the media is portraying him?


I was wondering the same thing. He calls the guy an "Asshole Fuckface" one day, and now he's worried that the guy's image might be sullied as a result of a satirical illustration.

IDGAS

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY
March 2004

JUL 14, 2008 04:56 PM

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

FearTheReaper said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
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 fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi 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.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.



I sent an email to all the people on the forwarding list explaining why they were idiots.

But, remember, that New Yorker cover won't continue the lie.....



Just kinda wondering, if you're not voting for Obama, why do you give a shit about how the media is portraying him?



Because right is right and wrong is wrong. Weird, huh?

But thanks for reminding me why I don't post here anymore.

See ya.



Because someone asked you a simple question?

What a fucking crybaby.



Because the New Yorker provided a funny satirical cover that addressed the absurdity of so many voters ignorant beliefs. And FTR is only a moderately amusing crybaby.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

JUL 14, 2008 05:03 PM

ckdexterhaven said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
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 fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi 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.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.



I sent an email to all the people on the forwarding list explaining why they were idiots.

But, remember, that New Yorker cover won't continue the lie.....



Just kinda wondering, if you're not voting for Obama, why do you give a shit about how the media is portraying him?


I was wondering the same thing. He calls the guy an "Asshole Fuckface" one day, and now he's worried that the guy's image might be sullied as a result of a satirical illustration.


Ummm...the guy has a problem with the way Obama was portrayed. He thinks it was a racist illustration (or plays into people's racist imagery). I happen to disagree with FTR, but I wouldn't question his right or reasoning for "giving a shit."

To put it simply for you two: I think Alan Keyes is an Asshole Fuckface, but if someone portrayed him in a racist light, I'd have a problem with that. Not sure what is so complicated here.

attn_Hussein_ho

attn_Hussein_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

JUL 14, 2008 05:05 PM

PointBlank said:

ckdexterhaven said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
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 fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi 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.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.



I sent an email to all the people on the forwarding list explaining why they were idiots.

But, remember, that New Yorker cover won't continue the lie.....



Just kinda wondering, if you're not voting for Obama, why do you give a shit about how the media is portraying him?


I was wondering the same thing. He calls the guy an "Asshole Fuckface" one day, and now he's worried that the guy's image might be sullied as a result of a satirical illustration.


Ummm...the guy has a problem with the way Obama was portrayed. He thinks it was a racist illustration (or plays into people's racist imagery). I happen to disagree with FTR, but I wouldn't question his right or reasoning for "giving a shit."

To put it simply for you two: I think Alan Keyes is an Asshole Fuckface, but if someone portrayed him in a racist light, I'd have a problem with that. Not sure what is so complicated here.


Im sorry sir, youre going to have to step back in the group think for me to hear you properly.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUL 14, 2008 05:08 PM

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.


ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
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 fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi 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.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.



I sent an email to all the people on the forwarding list explaining why they were idiots.

But, remember, that New Yorker cover won't continue the lie.....

What insane list is your dad signed up for? Certainly they aren't just sending this shit out randomly. And if they are, it's targeted towards those with certain tendencies.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

JUL 14, 2008 05:11 PM

PointBlank said:

ckdexterhaven said:

Shiny_Metal_Ass said:

FearTheReaper said:
My father just sent me this. He's a Democrat. The subject line? DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS? It came with a picture of Down and looked exactly like a column. The only way to tell it wasn't one of hers was to check her columns.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


ByMAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page
OBAMAS TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obamas campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obamas internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history and this was all from the internet campaign.
What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldnt be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that cant be broken and no ethics that prevail.
Obamas internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.
Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.
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 fromSaudi Arabia,Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located inSaudi 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.
We have been concerned about the legality of bundling contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaigns internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.



I sent an email to all the people on the forwarding list explaining why they were idiots.

But, remember, that New Yorker cover won't continue the lie.....



Just kinda wondering, if you're not voting for Obama, why do you give a shit about how the media is portraying him?


I was wondering the same thing. He calls the guy an "Asshole Fuckface" one day, and now he's worried that the guy's image might be sullied as a result of a satirical illustration.


Ummm...the guy has a problem with the way Obama was portrayed. He thinks it was a racist illustration (or plays into people's racist imagery). I happen to disagree with FTR, but I wouldn't question his right or reasoning for "giving a shit."

To put it simply for you two: I think Alan Keyes is an Asshole Fuckface, but if someone portrayed him in a racist light, I'd have a problem with that. Not sure what is so complicated here.



Then this...



would be exactly what, then?

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

JUL 14, 2008 05:17 PM

You think that was racist? What are you talking about?


Again: there are people that I think are Assholes. I would be pissed if they were portrayed in a racist light. Do you need this explained a third time?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 8

Next

Now Hear This

Last Comment 5 HR by orbro

Now Hear This

Last Comment 5 HR

There's like a half-hour of video here. You should do a vlog. More ...

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #74

Last Comment 5 HR

Parents who are accustomed to carrying guns around may not think anything of going into child-related... More ...

An Encounter With Jonathan Shaw's Narcisa

Last Comment 6 HR

thanx gurlz... u rrrrrule!! xx jonathan shaw and narcisa More ...

SuicideGirl: Bob

Bob

Terrible Woman's MySpace Alias Leads to Teen's Suicide.

Last Comment 21 HR

But, it's delivered poorly...really poorly. Unless, it's not a joke, in which case, it's a good place... More ...

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08 by Shalome

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08

Oh my fucking god. More ...

Filtering the Truth: Religion - Friend or Foe?

Last Comment 11/30/08

I'm just going to skip over the mass orgy that's going on and say my piece: I don't think religion is... More ...