And the last poll I seen today on the news stated.

Obama-47%
McCain-41%

Not so even to me.

Throwing idiotic charges of Obama is to blame for high gas prices, wants to lose a war, would permit genocide, and now BFF with Castro…is just NUTZ.
Someone needs to up grandpa’s meds, before he starts yelling at Barrack to get off his lawn.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....11509.html

It’s getting kinda funny, seeing the patented evil rovian techniques being flailed ineffectively in the hands of the geriatric, the feebleminded, and the simply stupid.

And I won’t even address the other nonsense being floated around this site…

What is so destructive about telling the truth.
If that old fart Castro is now arguing any gibberish against Obama’s U.S.-Cuban relations is precisely because before Obama became “the de facto nominee,” he was singing all his praises and admiration of him and he saw how that could well work against him getting electedand then end up with McCain.
Obama has the full fledged support of some of this world’s most totalitarian, oppressive and violent regimes amongst those Cuba. Case in point this interesting report:

Obama’s Troubling
Internet Fund Raising
By Maureen Dowd
7-7-8

Certainly, the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama’s campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama’s 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 shouldn’t be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can’t be broken and no ethics that prevail.

Obama’s 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 from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi 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 campaign’s 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.