+- Drunkard's Walk Forums (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums)
+-- Forum: General (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Politics and Other Fun (http://www.accessdenied-rms.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Obama Campaign Charged with Credit Fraud (/showthread.php?tid=3671)
Obama Campaign Charged with Credit Fraud - ECSNorway - 10-15-2008
Quote:NORTH KANSAS CITY, MO.From Kansas City Fox Affiliate
--
A North Kansas City couple has been left scratching their heads after they became the victims of a political scam.
Steve
and Rachel Larman say a strange credit card charge appeared on their
statement this month -- a $2300 donation to Barack Obama's presidential
campaign. The Larman's say they don't want this to be about their
political affiliation, but they say they're not about to give the Obama
campaign any help from their pocketbook.
They said they notified Chase, their credit card bank, to report the fraud.
"(They)
said that they had seen-they were familiar with this," said Steve
Larman. "It was fraud, they believe through telemarketing but they were
going to be doing some more investigations."
The Larman's don't
want their politics to enter into what is essentially just a fraudulent
charge. But they say that the charge involves the Obama campaign adds
insult to injury for the registered Republicans.
"They (Chase)
kept on asking me 'are you sure you wouldn't have gone to a site in
support of Obama'," said Rachel Larman. "And I repeatedly said 'Im
voting for McCain - I would not be going to an Obama site'."
Chase
dropped the charge from the Larman's card. The couple is thankful that
they caught the charge on the card, but worried that others may not see
that type of fraud on their own credit cards before it's too late.
"You
always get emails saying be on the lookout," said Rachel. "So I just
wanted to get the word out, that there's someone out there perpetrating
this against people, and to pay attention."
The Obama campaign said they were aware of the Larman's story, but did not have any comment.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
- Morganite - 10-15-2008
"Obama Campaign Charged" might be going a bit too far - it's quite easy to believe that someone unaffiliaited with (though probably *supporting*)
Obama is behind this.
I'm a bit surprised at the lack of comment though. Doesn't it look bad for Obama not to be denouncing people who are breaking the law in his name?
-Morgan.
- Fidoohki - 10-16-2008
I think that is code for ' Damn it! We got caught Pinky! Go try something else!'
WARNING WARNING! THIS IS A JOKE. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR ANYTHING ELSE
OTHER THAN TO INJECT HUMOR INTO A BAD SITUATION! I DO NOT BELIEVE
BARRACK OBAMA WOULD CONDONE OR EVEN KNOW ABOUT SUCH A FRAUD! WE
NO ... ... We now return you to your regularly scheduled hate feast err
political discussion.
The same to you.
- Bob Schroeck - 10-16-2008
I very much doubt any campaign anywhere would be stupid enough to try something like this as a matter of policy. Given the size of any campaign, the odds of
someone unscrupulous ending up working the phones in a campaign office somewhere are pretty much 1:1, and no doubt it's some petty crook like that who saw
a golden opportunity and took it. As for denouncing... well, it's probably being treated like any other case of fraud -- you don't see Bank of America
"denouncing" the phishers who are taking money in their name, do you?
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
- Morganite - 10-16-2008
Not really the same sort of situation. Bank of America is not receiving the money in such cases. Wheras here, the money would apparently have gone to
Obama's campaign. Thus, he's in a position to earn points by heartily disapproving of such shennanigans.
-Morgan.
- Ayiekie - 10-16-2008
He would lose far more points by giving the story media attention than he could possibly gain from denouncing it.
- Morganite - 10-16-2008
... And why would that be?
-Morgan.
- Bob Schroeck - 10-16-2008
Quote:Wheras here, the money would apparently have gone to Obama's campaign.Just because the campaign's name is on the receipt doesn't mean they necessarily got the money. The article makes no mention of the money actually going to the campaign, just that it was charged in their name. I think it's far more likely that it's a scam artist laying a false trail.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
- Ayiekie - 10-16-2008
Quote: Morganni wrote:Because this isn't on the national radar, and Obama bringing it up (particularly when it almost certainly has no connection to his campaign)
... And why would that be?
would put it there?
- ECSNorway - 10-16-2008
Quote: Ayiekie wrote:Exactly. Right now the Mainstream Media is ignoring it.
Quote: Morganni wrote:Because this isn't on the national radar, and Obama bringing it up (particularly when it almost certainly has no connection to his campaign)
... And why would that be?
would put it there?
After all, reporting it would hurt Obama, and they don't want to do that.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
- Ayiekie - 10-16-2008
The mainstream media is ignoring it because it's a non-issue. It's obviously not actually connected to his campaign, and anybody who is even remotely
acquainted with reality can see that.
I realise the evils of the Mainstream Media are your current talking point, ECS, but when even Fox doesn't think a story has legs, you might consider
letting it go.
- Bob Schroeck - 10-16-2008
And given how wild Fox has been over the past couple weeks to say anything negative they can about Obama, that's pretty telling.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
- Fidoohki - 10-16-2008
Hey. Just because they report what the other newsgroups consider 'not worthy of reporting' doesn't
mean they are wrong.
Ayers is an issue since whenever Obama says something about it we find out he was hiding
more. This is something that should have been vetted out two years ago. Completely vetted
out. It's interesting how most of the other 'news' groups won't touch this. If roles were reversed
McCain would have been crucified.
Rev. Wright? It's more of a ' It's old news and nothing there.' but it goes to judgement in a minor
role. VERY minor IMO.
Accorn is another 'Ayers' type problem that Obama is repeating the tactic of 'admit nothing they
haven't proved' Right now it is just a court case, and two large donations in which OBama had
some to considerable influence in making happen: His campaigns $830K one for their scouting and
set up and $230K from the Woods foundation that Obama and Ayers sat on at the time. Right now
he only admitted to the courtcase.
It bothers me that he is getting upset that Foxnews isn't kissing his rear like the other 'newsgroups'
are.
Sorry rants almost over. As for this though I agree. This is a nonstarter and should be ignored as
'unconfirmable and un affiliated.'
- Ayiekie - 10-16-2008
Sarah Palin's husband is involved with a separatist party (and Palin herself, at best, showed poor judgement in dealings with them) and the media barely
touched this. Do you think Obama having ties to Copperheads (which are far stronger than his ties to Ayers) would have gone similarly unremarked?
The Ayers thing is a nonissue because he was not a terrorist when Obama had very tenous ties with him. Serious question: what do you think it proves about him?
I would encourage you not to fall into the ECSNorway hole of assuming the media is plotting against your preferred candidate. It isn't. Ignoring the fact
that the media in the US is ridiculously right-slanted and pro-government compared to the media of any other Western democracy, their primary motivation (yes,
even Fox) is and will always be viewer share. They chase the stories they think interest people or will win their approval. It's too big to have a single
agenda beyond its own profit margins. Particular people certainly have political leanings, but that doesn't mean there's any unified voice, ignoring
the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are big tent parties with wildly divergent interests to begin with.
Incidentally, as far as Fox goes, I personally don't mind that they report on things other media outlets don't, nor even that they do it for blatantly
partisan reasons. That's their right, and if Democrat affiliated organisations get caught doing something wrong, that's their problem. Even their
hypocrisy I can live with. What bothers me is they are dishonest, and that when they have been caught flat-out lying or distorting the truth, it has thus far
been largely ignored by their supporters. I don't like my sources lying, no matter how good I feel their intentions were.