Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by teyates:

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and those who have the most to lose are certainly the ones making the biggest stink.  But then again totally disreagard the people killed in Benghazi by the bumbling stooge who is currently in charge.  Long Live the Unions!!!!

+++ 

 

Is that all you can say? Your response totally fails to address the subject of this topic.

Is Benghazi the universal antidote for any an all lies and failings of Romney?

Originally Posted by teyates:

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and those who have the most to lose are certainly the ones making the biggest stink.  But then again totally disreagard the people killed in Benghazi by the bumbling stooge who is currently in charge.  Long Live the Unions!!!!

Surprisingly the Benghazi alarmist on here never mention the thousands of our men Bush killed trying to find non-existent nukes in Iraq.  What about it T? I call it desperation. Don’t you?

First off yoda, because the title of this thread like the rest of the UAW BS is just that...BS.  It is an attempt right before the election to try and sway the voters.  I would be willing to bet that the accusations against Hussein Obama go alot fuurther when all is said and done than those against the Romneys.  If the UAW spent more time worrying about how their are spending my tax money and less about how the Romneys spent theirs we would be in better shape.

And Quaildog, the men and women killed in the Iraq War were killed in a declared military action, which was justified and authorized by the Congress of the US, based upon intelligence from lots of other countries besides our own.  These four men died while begging to be assited, and the current administration and those who work under them denied them assistance.  If you cannot find that distasteful then this country has sunk to an even newer low.  HOw could any man say that if these accusations are true that this was justified?  Only an idiot would do so. No one in their right mind would ever let their child or loved one serve in an armed forces where the CoC had no more integrity than this man has demonstrated.

Gorge Bush forgot more about integrety and leadership than this man will ever know.

well, according to the news today... the order was given and it took the guys 25 min. to load weapons and get to the location. so, i guess the "conspiracy theory" is developing holes!

now, back to the topic of the thread... i guess we all know another reason romney won't release his tax returns! it's hard to hide the profits from extortion!

Wonder why there's nothing about this on re pu table sites? Heck, I didn't even find it on the socialist/communist/obama *** kissing "news"outlets. Looks like not even the gimmethats like nation of change. 

 

 

ALERT FDLers! Nation of Change is spamming emails with requests for donations.

 

Tags: , ,



10:15 am in Uncategorized by Liz Berry



You may recall a couple of days ago I commented on Alan Jones and the Nation of Change–a group of self-declared “progressives” who seem to have collecting money as their first priority.

Well this morning I got an email requesting donations for “our heroes occupying for justice”: I checked and Daily Kos has also posted on this. They are even madder than I am.

Here is an excerpt from the email I got. My advice: Don’t give these people a red cent. Shame on them!

One of the things about the Occupy Wall Street events is that with the exception of the one at Washington DC which as I understand is a symbolic representation of all of us and who do have a site to which to contribute, that we should go to the sites of our local Occupy Dallas, Occupy LA, etc. and contribute at that site. If these people need supplies, they need them NOW, not after some group like Nation of Change takes their half out of the middle and distributes pennies weeks or months later. Bring the supplies and food yourself to your local Occupy groups and/or as I said, contribute at their web sites.

Here is an excerpt from the email I received from these scumbags. Call them and give them a piece of your mind. We don’t need them trying to hijack this movement and make it about progressives. This is not about progressives. This is about the majority of all Americans.


Nation of Change", who are you and why are you spamming me?

 

IMPORTANT UPDATE: It now appears that Brave New Foundation was not at fault in this incident. They are alleging that Nation of Change gained access to and copied their email list without authorization. See this diary for more details.



Dear Nation of Change (along with Brave New Foundation),

Let me tell you about a little strategy I use to find out who's buying and selling my email address... When I give my email address to an organization or Web site, I "tag" it to make it unique to that site while still ending up in my inbox. So when that site decides to sell or share my address, I know who did it.

When I put my address on a petition created by Brave New Films (now the Brave New Foundation) during the 2008 presidential campaign, I did not give Brave New Films permission to give it out to others. Guess what, folks, that's spamming, and it's evil, and I don't support organizations that spam or help others spam. By giving out my address and others without permission, Brave New Foundation has permanently lost my support, and by using my and others' illicitly obtained addresses, so have you.

But that's not the end of it.

 

Because I'd never heard of your organization before receiving your spam yesterday, and because it was sent to an address that should not have been shared, and because something looked a little, well, iffy about it, I decided to do a little research and try to learn more about you. And I can't say I liked what I found.

It's not because you're advocating positions with which I disagree. I haven't actually looked carefully at your positions, but from what little I glanced at, I didn't see anything I found particularly shocking or offensive. No, what's bothering me is that I get the distinct impression that you're trying to lie and deceive people. And if you think I want to see progressives emulating the Koch Brothers, boy, you've got another think coming.

Let me give you some examples of what I'm talking about.


The email you sent me yesterday was the first one I've ever received from you, and yet there was no acknowledgment of that fact in the email. You made it look like it was just business as usual, as if you were someone I'd been corresponding with all along, just another political organization clamoring for attention in my inbox. That's just wrong. If you're going to start spamming people without their permission, then the least you can do is introduce yourselves and give them the opportunity to recognize that you're someone new and they should make a conscious decision about whether they want to keep hearing from you. Trying to slip in under people's radars is deceptive and slimy.


Like your email to me, your Web site is clearly and unequivocally designed to give the impression that you're an entrenched, established organization. There's nothing on the site about the fact that you've just launched, nor is there any historical information about you. Where did you come from? How long have you been around? What was the impetus for the creation of your organization? How long have you been working in progressive journalism? What are your progressive credentials? What are your journalism credentials? What are the biographies and qualifications of your leadership team and board of directors (neither anyone on your board nor your executive director have any easily found information about them on the Web)? All of this information is needed for people to be able to properly evaluate the credibility of your organization. Maybe after you've been around for a few years, your work will speak for itself, but it's deceptive and slimy to pretend that it does when it really doesn't.

How do I know that you just launched? Because when I searched yesterday, there wasn't a single link to your Web site anywhere on the internet that isn't controlled by you (i.e., your Facebook page, Twitter feed). Did you think nobody would notice that you sprang out of nowhere?


When I look up the whois information for Brave New Foundation, just as an example, I see real contact information about real people who work for that organization. In contrast, when I look up your whois information, I see:

Registration Private
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
Phone:+1.4806242599
FAX:+1.4806242598
Email:NATIONOFCHANGE.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com

What (or who) are you trying to hide?

If you think I'm going to want to have anything to do with an organization that proudly lists Noam Chomsky as one of its authors, you're very much confused. He's a nutcase and a crackpot, and any progressive who thinks he's anywhere near on the same page as Chomsky is a progressive I want nothing to do with, thank you very much.


Your Web site claims, "We are directly funded by small donations from the public whom we serve. We believe that this distinction is essential to the production of reliable journalism and truly independent thought." However, since you just sprang yourselves on the world yesterday, clearly none of the "public whom [you] serve" has had the opportunity to donate yet, and yet you've somehow managed to find the money to hire a staff, build a kick-ass Web site hosted in the Amazon cloud (which isn't free), and do a big email blast which also isn't free. Who bankrolled the creation of your organization? Who's continuing to pour money into it until it is really able to support itself from "small donations," if indeed that ever occurs?


As far as I can tell, your mailing address is a private home within a housing development. What's up with that?


Your Web site makes reference to your Bylaws, but said Bylaws are not published in full anywhere on the site.


Your Web site claims that you are a 501(c)3 organization, but neither Network for Good's nor GuideStar's database of all registered 501(c)3 charities lists you (at least not under the name "Nation of Change"), and rather than providing your EIN on your Web site, you say, "Your donation email receipt will include all relevant tax information, including the NationofChange Tax EIN number." Again, what are you trying to hide? Why haven't you published your EIN on your Web site?


Are you aware that BBB standards for charitable accountability require a minimum of five voting members? Your board has only four, one of which is your executive director, an arrangement which is discouraged by the BBB and charity watchdogs for reasons which should be obvious.

Should we be concerned about the fact that your Director of Development has the same last name as your Executive Director? Are they both paid positions? Nepotism is a big problem in poorly run charities.


For all I know, a year or two from now I will be awestruck by the good your organization has done after springing from out of nowhere. But right now, I'm not awestruck. Instead, I'm suspicious. Really, really suspicious. Is that the first impression you wanted to make on your potential supporters?

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kamens

REVEALED: Mysterious anti-Obama text spam was sent by VA GOP politician (UPDATED x4)

by Q TipFollow


 

"Obama believes killing children is a right until the umbilical cord is cut." "VP Biden mocks a fallen Navy Seal during memorial." "Obama denies protection to babies who survive abortions." "Stop Obama from forcing gay marriage on the states."

That's just a sampling of totally unsolicited text message spam that furious recipients said lit up their phones yesterday. It was all sent from anonymously-registered email domains hosted by GoDaddy.

Well, that anonymity didn't last long.

 

I don't see any news stories about this yet, so perhaps this is a Daily Kos exclusive, but GoDaddy has now taken down those domains, such as obamaliesett.com, votegopett.com, and gopmessage.com, and has removed the privacy screen that shielded the registrant's identity.

We can now clearly see that the registrant for all of these domains is Jason Flanary of Centreville, Virginia, who has a @ccadvertising.com email address. And it turns out that the COO of ccAdvertising is erstwhile Virginia GOP state senate candidate Jason Flanary.

And this isn't the first time Flanary has spammed people with text messages a week before election day. It even resulted in a lawsuit last time.

Fortunately, Flanary lost his election in 2011.

UPDATE: If you recieved this spam, file a complaint with the FCC. And anyone can support the official FCC petition to end political text message spam.

UPDATE: ccAdvertising has a long, long, long history of pumping spam out of every telecommunications orifice, and even boasting of voter suppression. I don't know why such a notorious operation still exists.

UPDATE: We were warned.

UPDATE: The "WHOIS" contact info for the domains in question has changed once again. It now points to "G Joseph," presumably Gabriel S. Joseph III, who, as of this NY Times piece from 2006, was the president of ccAdvertising.

”Nation Of Change” — Likely A Front Group? Please read. (1 post)

  • Profile picture of Jesse Maximillian RexJesse Maximillian Rex said 9 months, 2 weeks ago:

    Greetings,

    I would like to inform you all of a troubling concern brought up by Emerald. The issue is a group called “Nation of Change”, who is currently raising funds and attempting to utilize Occupy’s name to do so. This may be not the first time of greedy “nonprofits” attempting to cash-in on Occupy. I know of other incidents.

    They use a proxy of some variety. This may be a front group for another organization — the infrastructure base seems too entrenched and almost seems pre-existing.

    My preliminary poking reveals the following quote about them:

    “Like your email to me, your Web site is clearly and unequivocally designed to give the impression that you’re an entrenched, established organization. There’s nothing on the site about the fact that you’ve just launched, nor is there any historical information about you. Where did you come from? How long have you been around? What was the impetus for the creation of your organization? How long have you been working in progressive journalism? What are your progressive credentials? What are your journalism credentials? What are the biographies and qualifications of your leadership team and board of directors (neither anyone on your board nor your executive director have any easily found information about them on the Web)? All of this information is needed for people to be able to properly evaluate the credibility of your organization. Maybe after you’ve been around for a few years, your work will speak for itself, but it’s deceptive and slimy to pretend that it does when it really doesn’t.

    How do I know that you just launched? Because when I searched yesterday, there wasn’t a single link to your Web site anywhere on the internet that isn’t controlled by you (i.e., your Facebook page, Twitter feed). Did you think nobody would notice that you sprang out of nowhere?”

    ….

    Your Web site claims that you are a 501(c)3 organization, but neither Network for Good’s nor GuideStar’s database of all registered 501(c)3 charities lists you (at least not under the name “Nation of Change”, and rather than providing your EIN on your Web site, you say, “Your donation email receipt will include all relevant tax information, including the NationofChange Tax EIN number.” Again, what are you trying to hide? Why haven’t you published your EIN on your Web site?

    Are you aware that BBB standards for charitable accountability require a minimum of five voting members? Your board has only four, one of which is your executive director, an arrangement which is discouraged by the BBB and charity watchdogs for reasons which should be obvious.

    Should we be concerned about the fact that your Director of Development has the same last name as your Executive Director? Are they both paid positions? Nepotism is a big problem in poorly run charities.

    For all I know, a year or two from now I will be awestruck by the good your organization has done after springing from out of nowhere. But right now, I’m not awestruck. Instead, I’m suspicious. Really, really suspicious. Is that the first impression you wanted to make on your potential supporters?”

    …. (another author) …..

    “The officers of the “company,” four women, don’t seem to exist. At least Google has never heard of them. Compared to them, I’m famous. The “company” address, 6319 Dante Ln NW, Albuquerque, NM 87114, shows a non-descript suburban house crammed in with a bunch of other non-descript suburban houses in Rio Rancho, a new ticky-tack city built buy developers across the river from Albuquerque.

    I’d say someone has found a nifty way to tide herself through a bad economy. (Work? Why?) And when she’s finished sending off another load of spam, she goes around the corner to the Lottaburger for lunch and to wait for another slew of white envelopes packed with money to arrive at the post office.”

    More here:

    http://blog.kamens.us/2011/07/...are-you-spamming-me/

Registration drives outdo vote fraud at polls as election problem

New voter ID laws take aim at election fraud at the polls, but a bigger problem may be abuses in voter registration drives.

WASHINGTON — When elections officials in Palm Beach County, Fla., checked out a form indicating that Carlos Ferrer, 36, wanted a new voter ID, they knew something was wrong. Ferrer is 43, and, instead of his home, the form listed his address as the Land Rover dealership where he works.

Ferrer didn't fill out the form. It was one of the suspicious registrations linked to a voter turnout campaign financed by the Republican National Committee, an operation that has spawned criminal investigations in Florida and elsewhere.

The allegations are just the latest to spring from partisan voter registration drives, one of the darker corners of the political consulting world. Almost every election season, these campaigns — which typically pay workers to collect registrations — lead to charges of trickery and fraud: forged signatures, made-up names, voters who say they were duped into registering with the wrong party.

Earlier this fall, some voters in California's Riverside County who thought they were signing petitions for ballot measures to legalize marijuana or create jobs said they unwillingly ended up registered as Republicans.

In California, voter registration drives generate more complaints and more arrests than any other type of election-related activity, according to statistics collected by the state Legislature.

"Everybody likes to talk about voter fraud, but it's really about voter registration fraud," said Darren Chesin, chief consultant for the California Senate elections committee. "That's where we constantly see stories in the papers of people actually getting arrested and prosecuted."

Experts say problems are inevitable with the American system of voter registration, in which a hodgepodge of state rules applies and the job of registering new voters is often left to political parties and activist groups.

Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, said registration drives perform a valuable public service. But in many of the paid campaigns, she pointed out, the goal is not simply to register voters, it's to sign up voters for the party that is paying. "And they may also have an incentive to make sure voters for the other side are not registered," she said.

In recent elections, political consultants say, most of the money for paid registration drives has come from Republicans. Brian Schrier, who assembles crews to collect signatures, said he once worked a drive that paid a $25 "bounty" for each Republican voter.

"It's insane, paying that much to register someone to vote Republican," said Schrier, who lives on a sailboat in Morro Bay. "When someone is paying that much, greed takes over, and bad things happen. The bounty program, in my opinion, needs to end."

Eleven states, including Florida, have made it illegal to pay bounties for registration cards. In California, where professional signature-gatherers are widely employed, the Legislature has twice passed bills to outlaw such payments. Both times, they were vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. "Voting is at the heart of our democracy," he said. "Efforts to register voters should be encouraged, not criminalized."

Federal courts have split on whether such bans are legal; the issue is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The troubled Republican National Committee registration campaign was organized by Nathan Sproul, the son of a traveling evangelist who has become one of the largest consultants on the GOP side in the gritty business of street-level politics. In past campaigns, Sproul has churned up a wake of allegations of voter deception and fraud from Pennsylvania to Oregon.

None of the charges have stuck, and none of the controversy has stopped Sproul from getting work. Sproul, of Arizona, has said he did more than $15 million in business last year.

"He gets in trouble almost every election cycle and nothing ever comes of it," said Steve May, a former Republican state legislator in Arizona. "He may walk a fine line, but that's where the winners walk in tough elections."

Sproul was paid at least $3.5 million through the Republican National Committee to organize get-out-the-vote drives in eight swing states and signed up more than 100,000 voters, he said. But Sproul was fired after election supervisors in Florida found dozens of suspect registration forms. Other suspicious forms turned up in North Carolina and in Virginia. After Sproul was dismissed, a registration-drive supervisor was arrested in Harrisonburg, Va., and accused of throwing eight voter registration forms into a trash bin.

Sproul and others in the profession say it's difficult to catch workers forging signatures and keep their projects clean. In paid drives, the work is often handled by temporary workers who receive minimal training.

Kellen Arno, field director for Arno Political Consultants, based in Carlsbad, said training centers often display photocopies of news stories and police reports of forgeries as a warning for new employees. "It's almost a constant game of making sure people are following the rules," Arno said.

One rule is the same across the country: Registration workers must turn in all forms signed by voters, no matter which party. But they can — and do — try to screen out voters from the other side.

In the recent campaign on behalf of the Republicans, Sproul's workers, who were paid by the hour, were coached to ask people whom they supported in the election. If the answer was President Obama, they were thanked and passed by. If the answer was Mitt Romney, they were asked whether they were registered and offered a form.

"There's a difference between stinky behavior and illegal behavior," said Jennie Drage Bowser, a senior fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures. "It doesn't feel right, but that's kind of the nature of campaigning."

She said states, in trying to regulate these campaigns, struggle to strike a balance between preventing fraud and allowing easy access to the voter rolls.

In the name of fighting fraud, 22 states set deadlines on how long companies can hold completed forms. In six states, voter-registration groups must sign up with the state. Other states require training for workers or number the forms for tracking purposes.

But critics say laws intended to prevent fraud in paid operations also make it tougher for nonpartisan groups, such as the League of Women Voters. Last year, measures to restrict third-party voter registration drives failed in seven states; Florida passed a law, but the deadline provision was struck by a federal court as too restrictive.

Experts say the best way to prevent fraud is to make it easier for voters to register. Bowser said more states are permitting online voter registration; 12 states now offer it, and three more have passed laws allowing it.

"What we really need," Weiser said, "is a system where government takes responsibility for making sure all citizens are on the rolls."



Originally Posted by teyates:

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and those who have the most to lose are certainly the ones making the biggest stink.  But then again totally disreagard the people killed in Benghazi by the bumbling stooge who is currently in charge.  Long Live the Unions!!!!

___

If "those who have the most to lose are certainly the ones making the biggest stink," then the supporters of Romney must indeed have the most to lose, given the unremitting stream of reeking, foul, malodorous lies they have told about the President of the  United States and Commander in Chief of Her Armed Forces, the HONORABLE Barack Hussein Obama!

HONORABLE Barack Hussein Obama!

 

One of these words does not belong, please circle the word which does not fit in this phrase.

The folks with the most too lose are the bunch of hornswaggling libtards standing around with one hand outstretched and the other in their neighbor's pocket. God forbid they might see a decrease in their handouts from the gummint, gotta keep Mochelle and the Chief Moocher in office.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×